[ale] Recommendation for off-line storage?

[tfreeman at intel.digichem.net]

There are so many ways to be penny smart and dollar stupid in the 
corporate/professional life. Years (and years) ago I worked for an outfit 
with a moderately large PDP11. The sysadmin had finally learned backups, 
but he couldn't sell management on a UPS, or even a power conditioning 
system. The computer ran the main instrument for the lab at that site, so 
when somebody hit a transformer outside the building, 25 technicions were 
pretty well idled for two days while field service got the hardware 
straightened out from the power surge.

Different problem on the surface, same underneath. Unwilling to properly 
defend assets.

On Thu, 11 May 2006, Denny Chambers wrote:

> I know what your talking about. Working in the Storage industry for the 
> last few years, it amazes me at the number of customers who think RAID 5 
> is all the protection they ever need. Then when their RAID goes bust, 
> they want to blame the manufacturer for their lost data. And I am not 
> talking just about people with a few hundred megabytes of data either, I 
> am talking about people with terabytes of data, with no backups.
> 
> My motto: "Restore your data or restore your resume...you'll need one or 
> the other."
> 
> Denny
> 
> James P. Kinney III wrote:
> 
> >>took freakin' forever.  but they don't want to spring for tape
> >>drives/libraries b/c "it's on a raid5 system, why do we need backups" ...
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Because RAID recovery when 2 drives fail is imperfect and costs more than
> >a decent tape backup system.
> >
> >Most corps are really boneheaded about data backup. Especially the small
> >ones. They are the ones that have the fewest resources for recovery and
> >thus they get hit the hardest during drive failures. Certain types of data
> >MUST be kept for 10 years (Think IRS!). The company accounting data AND
> >THE SOFTWARE THAT RUNS IT must be available during an IRS audit. These are
> >things that absolutely can NOT be trusted to a single copy system. RAID5
> >is designed speed and data security. But it is not designed for data
> >archival.
> >
> >I have seen too many RAID5 arrays fail because the system was built using
> >identical hard drive models and some even had sequential serial numbers.
> >This is a statistically good process of getting multiple failed drives.
> >RAID5 can only handle 1 dead drive at a time. If a second drive fails
> >dureing the recovery, the RAID stack is toast without serious, low-level
> >($$$) work.
> >
> >A mirrored RAID5 is a better bet fro the hard-drive only crowd. Use
> >different drive brands for better hardware safety.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ale mailing list
> >Ale at ale.org
> >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 

-- 
=============================================
If you think Education is expensive
Try Ignorance
                   Author Unknown
============================================