4 ms·
Everything depends on the security compliance needs. Regarding backup scheduler - sometimes companies need to have frequent backups due to their RPOs and RTOs,
by t_believ-er873 2y ago
Everything depends on the security compliance needs.
Regarding backup scheduler - sometimes companies need to have frequent backups due to their RPOs and RTOs, for example, if they operate in a highly regulated industry. If someone can tolerate the loss of data of two hours, then, they need to have backup performed every 2 hours, if we speak here about 8 hours (working day), so why not to have backups on a daily basis?
Regarding rotations - everything depends on a backup solution, if it provides with immutable backups, so the entire data won't be corrupted. Thus, the faster someone notices the mistake, the faster they can restore their copy. IDF helps more to decide the issue with storage - not to overload it (here also worth mentioning deduplication and compression).
- Xen9 2y agoWe should define the problem as "wanting to store most-typically-incrementally mutating in perpetuity." I did not put all definitions & assumptions to the post because this is not an academic paper and most of it can be figured out (if we assume we care about compliance, then everything is defined, and there is no interesting problem). IDF-TOH will improve security if implemented in this manner: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41179989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41179989 I realized writing this that it absolutely makes sense having different mediums do different jobs, since the I and D drives will be consumed at different rate too. This begs for further analysis because though we can obviously say that SSDs will be better for something that's accessed constantly the problem of which computer hardware to use given these parameters on use is ~solved.