Re: A Very Bad umount
Good Day Gene,
Gene Heskett <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 :
> On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote:
> > Any constructive ideas are appreciated. If I left
> > the drives mounted all the time, there would be no spew but
> > since these are backup drives, having them mounted all the
> > time is quite risky.
> > Martin McCormick WB5AGZ
> Why should you call that risky? I have been using amanda for
> my backups with quite a menagerie of media since 1998. On 4
> different boxes as I built newer, faster ones over the years.
Should a badly placed “rm” command occur on the system, the
system and both of its backup disks would be wiped clean. I
don't believe the risk mentioned here over was related to disk
decay. It was more about minimizing the time frame when this
catastrophe could happen.
I wouldn't do both backups at the same time personally, If
something very wrong occurs to the system at backup time, I'd
still have the secondary backup available for restore.
Things are a bit different when centralizing backup policies
with tools like Amanda.
> IMO the power savings from spinning down when not in active
> use, do not compensate for the increased failure rate you'll
> get under stop and start conditions.
Interesting opinion, it could be worth verifying. Keeping a
machine running for BOINC, I only had a disk issue once since
the beginning of the decade. Building disks has energy costs
Étienne Mollier <email@example.com>