Re: Backup

Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

> nemo_outis wrote:
....snip Borky's silly posturing... 

1.    	Do tell me how many folks have the patience to back up a 400-
gig drive to CDs.  

2.    	HD backups are many times faster than CDs or DVDs and can be 
performed unattended.  A decent tape drive will cost several times more 
than even a big HD (and that's not counting the SCSI card) and tape is 
notoriously unrobust.  CDs and DVDs aren't much better and the likelihood 
of at least one CD in a set of perhaps 50 failing (or just getting 
misplaced/lost) on, say, a primary Ghost backup (rendering recovery 
somewhere between difficult and impossible) is quite high.  

3.    	The MTBF of most modern HDs is 100,000 hrs and up.  The chance 
of a backup drive seeing more than a few percent of that is remote (e.g. 
two hours once a week for 10 years: 1%).  That both it and the drive it 
backs up would fail simultaneously is right up there with being hit with an 
asteroid.  However, if you're the ultimate paranoid belt-and-suspenders 
man, back up to TWO independent HDs (either as true duplicates or 
alternated).  It's still way faster than CDs, DVDs, or tape (and cheaper 

4.    	Offsite backup for most users is as simple as keeping the home 
backup at work (and vice-versa for small offices).  Child's play.  However, 
just keeping the USB HD backup in the garage wll be sufficient "off-site-
ness" for many.


PS  The overwhelming risk wrt to backup for home users is failure to do it.  
Anything that mitigates that primary risk and overcomes inertia, apathy, 
and avoidance is a giant step forward. Backup to HDs performs that role 
with maximum convenience and entirely satisfactory reliability.