Good Day Gene, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@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.moll...@mailoo.org>