3 ms·

> the "3-2-1 backup rule" is a relatively modern concept, at least by that name. I also remember things like "have one backup in one place, another in another p

by BeetleB 2mo ago

> the "3-2-1 backup rule" is a relatively modern concept, at least by that name. I also remember things like "have one backup in one place, another in another place" since before this mnemonic, but I feel like it's unfair to judge a 70+ years archive on something that just recently actually became a widespread mantra. They signed up with them in 2019. Not long ago. Even if it is a "new" concept, common sense isn't. Pretty much anyone who cares about their data will do the due diligence, and this is not something that requires technical chops. This has been a concern for well over 20 years! It really sounds like some senior management trying to be cheap.

jrochkind1 2mo ago
It is definitely not having sufficient budget, although I doubt management was "trying" to be cheap. They probably have 1-2 IT staff, who have been paid significantly under market value compared to private sector. Management was not management of an IT organization, and probably did not really understand the trade-offs or what they'd lose by not spending more money on IT. Their IT staff was probably super busy and over-worked and also (not to throw them under the bus) not experienced enough to really advise them, and if they had and had tried to advise them, would management have decided that doing less programmatic work to pay for it, and having IT people at least temporarily spend less time on whatever they do to support regular business, to set up and support backups, was worth it? Maybe, maybe not. Again, the managers probably have little experience with IT. The whole organization is probably well under 100 people. Source: I work in non-profits. Why is HN always focused on suggesting there's a person who could have easily made the right choice if they weren't an idiot?
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  You say management was not being cheap, and then list everything cheap management does. I'm familiar with the dynamics of such places. If they actually go through a proper lawsuit, my guess is the lawyers will cost more than whatever they'd have to pay for redundant backups by an order of magnitude. Which means they probably won't go to court.
  - jrochkind1 2mo ago
    You're right, management should have "decided" to triple their budget in order to have double staff, have management with IT experience, have triple the IT staff and pay them double, and pay more for IT vendors/equipment as well, while keeping programming the same. Or heck, they should have increased programming too, why not. Maybe quadruple the budget. I don't know why they didn't decide to do that, I guess they just make poor decisions to be cheap. Otherwise it's a complete mystery.

by BeetleB 2mo ago

jrochkind1 2mo ago

It is definitely not having sufficient budget, although I doubt management was "trying" to be cheap. They probably have 1-2 IT staff, who have been paid significantly under market value compared to private sector. Management was not management of an IT organization, and probably did not really understand the trade-offs or what they'd lose by not spending more money on IT. Their IT staff was probably super busy and over-worked and also (not to throw them under the bus) not experienced enough to really advise them, and if they had and had tried to advise them, would management have decided that doing less programmatic work to pay for it, and having IT people at least temporarily spend less time on whatever they do to support regular business, to set up and support backups, was worth it? Maybe, maybe not. Again, the managers probably have little experience with IT. The whole organization is probably well under 100 people. Source: I work in non-profits. Why is HN always focused on suggesting there's a person who could have easily made the right choice if they weren't an idiot?

BeetleB 2mo ago
You say management was not being cheap, and then list everything cheap management does. I'm familiar with the dynamics of such places. If they actually go through a proper lawsuit, my guess is the lawyers will cost more than whatever they'd have to pay for redundant backups by an order of magnitude. Which means they probably won't go to court.
- jrochkind1 2mo ago
  You're right, management should have "decided" to triple their budget in order to have double staff, have management with IT experience, have triple the IT staff and pay them double, and pay more for IT vendors/equipment as well, while keeping programming the same. Or heck, they should have increased programming too, why not. Maybe quadruple the budget. I don't know why they didn't decide to do that, I guess they just make poor decisions to be cheap. Otherwise it's a complete mystery.