3 ms·
More realistically you are deploying two of the servers; redundancy is not backup. And now you have two servers to administer. The whole point of something lik
by Karunamon 3y ago
More realistically you are deploying two of the servers; redundancy is not backup. And now you have two servers to administer.
The whole point of something like tape is having an off-line copy of your data, ideally in a separate physical location. A second server with a bunch of disk in the same location connected to the same network isn't that, and will not save you from ransomware or natural disaster.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 3y ago> And now you have two servers to administer. If you use even crude tools such as clusterssh, managing a bunch of machines isn’t linearly harder than managing one. While tape renders itself easily to be offline storage (it’s offline as soon as you eject it after all), you can have that with remote servers that pull data to back it up instead of receiving pushed data. If no server can push data to any other server, only pull from them, a ransomware attack becomes a lot harder. Also, while tape in a warehouse (or on the desk) is offline, tapes in the robot are no more difficult to destroy than hard disks. They are just slower.