5 ms·
The problem is sometimes you only find out your backup is corrupted when you need it.
by himlion 9y ago
The problem is sometimes you only find out your backup is corrupted when you need it.
- cm2187 9y agoYeah, agree. And I am not talking about enterprise level of reliability. More like personnal / small office. But for anything above a few TB, running your own hardware will be way cheaper if you take say a 5y horizon. Disks are so large today that you don't need a big config. In fact you might even keep two copies to reduce the risk. Of course there is the occasional trip to the datacentre. I made that mistake. I pay more in uber than I saved by picking a datacentre far away.
- w458cmau 9y agoDo you need co-location though? I dropped an HP Microserver at a friend's place, which backs up snapshots of my main backup server at home daily. Seems to work well so far, at quite limited costs. Since my main backup server also backs up his NAS we both win. Since all backups are encrypted there is also little privacy risk from theft (or snooping on one another).
- cm2187 9y agoWith 1Gbps symetrical connections slowly becoming more frequent this would be a much cheaper alternative (assuming you only run it for backups, I also run a mail server and some websites). But in London it is not very practical. I know very few people who have really fast broadband.
- qeternity 9y agoIf you don't test your backups, then they're not backups.
- jjn2009 9y agoyup, the assertion that both failing is highly unlikely is under the assumption that you are checking the status of each copy regularly.
- cm2187 9y agoIn fact for any disk, it is important to have a script that reads all the data at least every couple of months. It will force the bad sectors to be identified or to be notified you have a bad disk before things get worse.