Carlos E. R. wrote: > > The Saturday 2007-06-02 at 12:04 +0200, Eberhard Roloff wrote: > >> However, for purposes of simplicity, lets assume that your son has data >> with a volume of 200GB (or less), that needs to be backed up regularly. > >>> If I had to backup all and every file on his computer, I should have 100 >>> Tb of usb drives... >> You might have ignored the essence of rsnapshot and similar solutions. >> The beauty of these solutions is that backups are done by using symlinks. > >> Lets see how this basically works and what you get as a result: > >> ===This is how it works:===== >> (assuming that you are doing a simple daily backup. In reality, you most >> probably will want to do weekly and monthly backups, as well) : > >> day1: 200GB are backed up to the usb drive > > > External usb hard drives are very convenient, but they are not reliable, > unfortunately. They are exposed to handling, for instance, and a HD should > not be even moved while spinning. > > Then, the chipsets used by those boxes are cheap and incomplete, they > don't have the necessary functions to use SMART and thus asses the drive > health. > > It is a very convenient way of adding large storage capacity which you can > then move out to a cupboard or safe, but in fact they can and do die on > you at the most unexpected moment. > I understand Google did a paper on disk drives. They found that SMART was not a very good predictor in determining drive health. I think it was a three year study on their drive failures at Google.
It was mentioned on a podcast "Security Now" http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm episode #81 -- Joseph Loo [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
