[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A Very Bad umount

Good Day Gene,

Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> 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
too indeed.

Kind Regards,
Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org>

Reply to: