3 ms·
Very wrong. Entire RAID arrays can be lost to fire, water/flooding, power surges, multiple drive failures, theft, etc. And if the controller dies you may be up
by seized 6y ago
Very wrong. Entire RAID arrays can be lost to fire, water/flooding, power surges, multiple drive failures, theft, etc. And if the controller dies you may be up the creek.
Backup is separate. Ideally following 3-2-1.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
- willis936 6y agoAgain, this is semantics. Redundancy is backup. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to keep data in one physical box in one physical location. I also never implied that. Please follow HN guidelines paragraph 3.
- seized 6y agoRedundancy is not backup based on industry standard terms. Redundancy protects against some hardware failures but not accidental deletes, filesystem corruption, malware, or a whole host of other things. Even filesystems with snapshots can be lost and snapshots are the only time you can start blurring the lines between redundancy and backups in terms of protecting against data loss via deletes etc. And they are still not proper backups as you can still have a hardware failure significant enough to wipe out all your data. A backup is a separate copy of data, either on separate hardware or off-site or a other combinations. Based on best practices and standard terminology. No one uses "redundancy" to refer to separate copies of data especially when discussing RAID in contexts like this discussion. So the only interpretation of your comment is the weak one that I responded to.