3 ms·
It's simply not sufficient to have multiple copies. It's way too easy to propagate errors in a way that slips under the radar, which then screws you over 5 year
by Sakos 4y ago
It's simply not sufficient to have multiple copies. It's way too easy to propagate errors in a way that slips under the radar, which then screws you over 5 years later. The main idea of long-time archival is redundancy. Replication is one form of redundancy, but it's not the only one and not the only one you should use.
- jmillikin 4y agoThis is nonsense. Replication to storage in different failure domains is quite sufficient to ensure long-term data preservation, and errors cannot "propagate" to archives unless your risk model involves angry wizards.
- grosswait 4y agoBit rot is a thing. It seems like you have a different idea of what archival means than most of us.