on Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:38:26PM +1030, David Purton (dcpurton@chariot.net.au) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:40:55AM +0000, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:37:26PM +1030, David Purton (dcpurton@chariot.net.au) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:57:04AM +0000, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > If you need to recover a snapshot (or file) from 12 months ago, a
> > > > three-disk rotation isn't going to do much for you.
> > >
> > > We backup offsite on CD, so restoring files 12 months old can be
> > > covered that way.
> >
> > Did you back up to floppies in 1995?
> >
> > 1995 shipping hard disk size: 512 MiB
> > 1995 shipping floppy size: 1.4 MiB
> > Floppies required for a full system backup: 366
> >
> > Current shipping hard disk size: 200 GiB
> > Current shipping CDROM capacity: 700 MiB
> > CDROMs required for a full system backup: 293
> >
> > You could cover your needs with 1-2 large capacity tapes.
> >
> > Incremental backups would be even smaller.
> >
> > Note that CDR as arechival media for old projects is reasonably sane.
> > For system backups, it's idiotic.
> >
>
> This is what I mean - we do not need to be able to do a full system
> restore for files in the distant past.
>
> We publish maths textbooks and each book fits on one or two CDs, so
> once we have a book printed, we dump it onto CD and store copies in a
> couple of locations.
>
> So backups from our point of view only need to cover for what's
> currently being worked on.
Note that your risk model doesn't address system recovery should you
need to rebuild servers. Just be aware that you've addressed only a
small subset of the typical issues answered by a good backup scheme.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Linux Gazette: Making Linux just a little more fun.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature