5 ms·
He even deleted the backups. >>the code had even deleted all of the backups that he had taken in case of catastrophe. Because the drives that were backing up t
by bhartzer 11y ago
He even deleted the backups.
>>the code had even deleted all of the backups that he had taken in case of catastrophe. Because the drives that were backing up the computers were mounted to it, the computer managed to wipe all of those, too.
- drzaiusapelord 11y agoIf you're not doing offsite and cold backups, then you're just asking for trouble. If not crap like this then a fire or a ransomeware infection or a malicious employee, etc.
- jasonjei 11y agoHe actually was doing a remote backup (although probably not a cold backup). Unfortunately, he had used mount instead of rsync over ssh, making it vulnerable to the rm -rf command.
- zyxley 11y agoThat's not a backup, it's a mirror.
- awqrre 11y agoa mirror is kind of a backup if you don't update it live... but of course you should have other backups that are offline.
- jasonjei 11y agoAre you suggesting that you can't backup with rsync? Because you can do full and incremental backups with rsync. In fact Time Machine on OS X looks like it does backups in this manner...
- cyphar 11y agoJust using rsync to make copies isn't a backup. If you use rsnapshot (which stores each copy separately) then you have a backup. Copies are not sufficient if you find out that something broke three weeks ago.
- satysin 11y agoIf you are not doing offline and offsite backups you are not doing backups at all.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rlpb 11y agoIn other words, he didn't have backups. A live copy of a running system available to that running system is not a backup.
- Houshalter 11y agoWell it still prevents against the hard drive failing. It doesn't protect against bad code, which he obviously didn't consider.
- laumars 11y agoRAID parity drives also protect against a drive failing but they're not backups either.
- Houshalter 11y agoIf it's a duplicate copy of data intended in case of failure then yes it is a backup. Its not an offsite backup, but many people don't keep their personal backups offsite.
- rlpb 11y agoIt is so deficient as a backup that I don't think it qualifies to be called a backup. That was my point. Backups are expected to protect against data loss for a number of different failure cases (eg. disk failure, hardware fault leading to slow filesystem corruption, fire/theft, failed upgrade, "undo" for accidental change or deletion). There is a point where something addresses so few of these failure cases that you can't reasonably call it a backup.
- laumars 11y agoThere's another term for what it is: redundancy. Redundancy is there for fast recovery times (even zero downtime depending on how redundancy is implemented). It's not intended to run as a backup as redundancy devices are live and can fail from many of the same causes that will take your primary devices offline (fire, sysadmin fail, etc) Likewise, if your "backups" are always online then it works better for business continuity than it does as a backup. So realistically it's more of a redundancy share.