Re: Is My Data DESTROYED?!

[berk walker <berk@panix.com>]

Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Christian Pernegger wrote:
> 
>>> I believe you are confusing raid with backup.
>>
>> For lots of people the primary role of RAID is as a protection against
>> data-loss nowadays. Backups just aren't feasible/cost-effective
>> anymore for the amounts of data involved. Sticking your head in the
>> sand and repeating that mantra doesn't change that and it isn't
>> helping.
> 
> Well, claiming that RAID will protect your data under all circumstances 
> isn't helping either. Backups will actually protect against such things 
> as rm -rf:ing the wrong directory or mkfs:ing the wrong device, etc. 
> Things that RAID will never protect against.
> 
> And I don't see how backups aren't feasable, USB/network harddrives keep 
> pace with in-box harddrive sizes just fine. Offsite backup might be 
> trickier/costlier, so you might constrain those to just the data that 
> you would be really sad to see gone if the house burns down (photo 
> album, own creations, etc).
> 
> /Mattias Wadenstein
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
Sir - Whereas Neil, et al, profess that RAID is NOT equal to BACKUP - 
Most of us know that tape backup is VERY costly, in several ways, in our 
multi-terrabyte situations. Your mention of USB/network solutions does 
beg the obvious question-- How would one do USB/network solutions 
without some degree of encoded backup, and trust?  BTW, worse yet is 
implied trust in Cloud, eh?

And then, you say: