On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:08:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the drive electronics fails, for example, or a piece of abrasive > dirt is on the head during a seekm you lose all three partitions. > > Better to have one partition on each of three separate drives. > > My strategy? > > * RAID1 with two drives > * reiserfs on the RAID (although I have been told that reiser has bad > resistance to power failures, I haven't changed yet; it's wonderfully > resilient to the software crashes I've been experiencing) > * backup by copying everything onto a dismountable hard disk and keeping > it on a shelf > * critical data kept in textual form and checked into monotone, which is > to be sync'ed to monotone repositories elsewhere (still setting this > up). >
This is similar to my approach except that I don't use monotone, I keep absolutley critical data in several formats on different media in different locations (one copy to my parents for example). Its the drive-on-the-shelf(-in-the-bank) issue I'm focusing on. What is the best way to protect the data on that drive. Since I use raid1 for my 80 GB drives, I can add that external drive to the array to get a bootable snapshot, but is there a better way? Maybe there's not but I figured that I'd check first. As someone else noted, the data-security companies keep this stuff as closely guarded secrets because its their bread-and-butter. If a virtual-tape-server is no better than your own home-brew linux raid setup then why spend the extra money? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
