3 ms·
It sounds like they didn’t have any backups at all but rather relied on a active-active replication link to a secondary storage. Edit: who knows it may be rela
by Shalle135 7y ago
It sounds like they didn’t have any backups at all but rather relied on a active-active replication link to a secondary storage.
Edit: who knows it may be related to the HPE issue.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-warns-that-some-ssd-drives-will-fail-at-32-768-hours-of-use/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/hardware/hp-warns-that...
- jnwatson 7y agoIn other words, RAID is not backup.
- mschuster91 7y agoWhat baffles me is that there seems to be no way for either the customer or a data-recovery company to flash a new firmware onto the drive after it has failed. Someone there wanted to spare the few millicents of copper trace for a JTAG port?!
- marcinzm 7y agoProbably to prevent supply chain firmware changes for hacking, espionage, etc.
- deelowe 7y agoHmm... I wonder what the "incident" was. If it involved something akin to an "rm -rf," then of course their replication link didn't protect them.
- fencepost 7y agoPerhaps they were depending on snapshotting and were not prepared for some kind of hardware failure taking out the entire storage system.