On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was talking about our backup strategy to my wife tonight (2 sets of
> full backups, nightly incremental backups onto CDRW: again, 2 CDs that
> we cycle between), and we started discussing what seems to be a huge
> hole in this common strategy.
>
> Namely, if you damage or lose any file you've worked on since the last
> full backup, and don't notice within two days, then the work will be
> lost - wiped out by the nightly incrementals!
No. You just restore to the last full backup and all the incrementals up
to that point.
>
> This likelihood obviously increases as the length of time between full
> backups increases. E.g. for us, we only fill an incremental CD a few
> times a year, so we only do a few full backups in a year.
Oh yeah.. the liklihood of performing the abovementioned restoration step
in preference to just biting the bullet and doing without the file you
wanted diminishes.
> What's the accepted practice for solving this problem? I thought of
> keeping a 3rd CDRW for the incrementals, that only gets pulled out and
> used say on the 1st of each month. At least then you have a month to
> realise you have some damaged or lost files. ANd you could I suppose
> extend this to have 2-monthly, 4-monthly media you used, and have some
> complex scheme for pushing and popping them, so that for N media, you
> could be safe for 2^N months. But that seems complex.
Yeah it's all about balanceing between full backups, incremental backups,
cost, data importance. Eek... just realised I'm late for work.
--
---<GRiP>---
Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist,
Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber,
BMX rider, Walker, Raver & rave music lover, Big kid that refuses
to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today!
Do people actually read these things?
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
