On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 00:55, Jason Lim wrote: > Not really... i think of it as helping to cure the disease and helping to > clean up the problem, not eliminating both because it is impossible to > cure the disease completely. Unfortuantely if you work with a medium to > large number of various equipment (or even a small number if you're > unlucky) you're bounded to be cracked sooner or later. Even the strictest > security policy and such won't guarentee 100% protection. Another way to > do this would be to go Russell's way (the ideal way) and run a RAID array > with 3 drives, 2 live and 1 spare, and the sync the spare up every 24 > hours. However, this would require 3 drives instead of 2... $$$ and space. > For the average server between 2-4 drives, this would mean a minimum of > 6-12 drives compared to 4-8. The server cases wouldn't even hold 12 > drives. They could hold up to 8 or so. So money isn't the only > consideration. Then you have to consider that even if we could somehow > place that many drives in the average rackmount case, overheating... power > supply issues...etc. come into play.
So go with my original suggestion and use only double the number of drives. > You might say "tape backup"... but keep in mind that it doesn't offer a > "plug n play" solution if a server goes down. With the above method, a > dead server could be brought to life in a minute or so (literally) rather > than half an hour... an hour... or more. You can make a tape backup into plug-and-play. It wouldn't be that difficult to do it. With the amount of time I've spent discussing this issue on this list I could have created some floppy boot disks that restore an entire system from a tape (presuming that I had a tape drive to test things with). -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page