4 ms·
> Data that isn't backed up (as in a second copy) doesn't really exist. An IMO more realistic statement: Data that is not backed up is implicitly classified as
by brazzy 13y ago
> Data that isn't backed up (as in a second copy) doesn't really exist.
An IMO more realistic statement: Data that is not backed up is implicitly classified as "nice to have" - in many cases a perfectly rational choice, if done consciously.
> Likewise: data that isn't backed up off site isn't really backed up.
You may as well argue that no data is ever "really" backed up because there is always the possibility of simultaneous failure. It's always a choice of how much risk you're willing to accept vs. how much money and effort it would cost to reduce it further.
- mikeash 13y agoYep. 1 copy of data is not enough, because it can be lost. Now, assuming that N copies of data is not enough, it's easy to see that N+1 copies is also not enough, because that extra copy can be lost, thus reducing to N copies, which is not enough. This proves by induction that no matter how many backups you have, it's not enough.