Re: backup archive format saved to disk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/06 16:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> RAID is *not* for archives!!!
>
> RAID was not designed for archives. I can see no reason why
> it wouldn't work for that. RAID 1, for example, is simply
> making two (or more) copies of the data. Are you saying that
> making more than one copy of a backup is not a reasonable
> approach?
>
[snip]
> The main advantages would be that one would essentially
> have burst error correction of the size of the disc
> (this being, with the FEC on the disc, if any, an
> interleaved code in effect), which is enormous, indeed,
> and economy in storage over using multiple copies, as
> illustrated above.
I'd only trust "RAID archiving" if the controller and a rescue CD
were also stored in the "archive location" along with the hard drives.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFeJdSS9HxQb37XmcRAtUjAJ9no82jGDDJp3PX7NlfAYeUlcuedACg0upz
Zc67aQ3B9Y7ChPhRaKb6yWE=
=Q02T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: