On Thursday 2008 December 18 17:07:33 Rob Starling wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:42:20AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:23:58AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > On Thursday 18 December 2008, Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote > > > about 'Re: LVM reorganization': > > > >1 word > > > > > > > >backup > > > > > > 3 words: > > > 4 TB /home > > > > I have 10 x 1Tb (raid6) on my machine, I went and bought 8x1Tb > > (+2x750Gb) for my backup machine, because I wanted some piece of mind > > for those occassions when fsck, resize and ... screw up That's nice. I'm not sure I can afford that much backup storage. That's -- 700 USD before buying a controller card, yes? > good call. let's all say it together now: > > RAID is Not a Substitute for Backups! RAID is *not* a substitute for backups! RAID saves you from localized disk failure -- in advanced RAID 1 setups, it could even save you from non-localized disk failure. It won't save you from a fat-fingered 'rm' command, or a badly behaving kernel that corrupt your fs, or dozens of other, more subtle errors. However, these can be largely mitigated through large does of paranoia. >:) I haven't taken a backup for over 4 years now and haven't lost any data yet, even through disk failures, controller hickups, and ill-advised LVM commands. I'm not saying it won't happen to me (or you), just that it hasn't bit me yet. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.