On May 12, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
> Without checking the internet, and before you listen to other peoples'
> anecdotes or anything, I'd like to hear your gut feel, I want to know what
> your natural instinct is. What do you think about the reliability of the
> following tools?
every one of these tools is incomplete by themselves.
(some might say i come from a paranoid viewpoint.)
anything that does not implement end-to-end checksumming is defective.
that, to me, implies
* a simple reliable path to capturing the checksum of the original contents
* a simple way to verify the checksum of the recovered contents.
i know of no backup system that does, or ever did.
that is why i have written a few backup systems myself.
sometimes, this means just putting wrappers around existing tools.
and while it doesn't hurt to check return codes, they are neither
necessary nor sufficient for correct results; i therefore mostly ignore them.
given the recent availability of erasure code systems, if i were doing this
now, i would devise an end-to-end scheme around erasure code tools,
which would give you enormous reliability.
andrew
-----------------------
Andrew Hume
623-551-2845 (VO and best)
973-236-2014 (NJ)
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
