Everyone should also have a remote backup anyway. Anyone relying on local hard drives to secure their data are completely naive. Not that I DON'T use a local, i

Everyone should also have a remote backup anyway. Anyone relying on local hard drives to secure their data are completely naive. Not that I DON'T use a local, it's great for quick and easy file backup and transfer, but I sure as hell don't rely on that $100 drive to work correctly and with remote backup, I'm sure not going to spend more than that on a local drive. If your data doesn't exist in three places, one remote, it doesn't exist. Ask Francis Coppola about how well having one local backup worked out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7019644.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7019644.stm Anyway, you're right about everything you said in your post, but just so people know, you can pay $20K for a backup array and if you don't have a remote, one fire makes that backup meaningless. Crash Plan, Carbonite, Backblaze, etc etc (AWS Glacier anyone?) all these services are so cheap you'd be insane not to just drop the $5 a month if your data is valuable.