-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/25/07 09:04, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: [snip] >> True. However, for a small data set (under 1 GB) the need for three >> copies means three hard drives. Using a hard drive and rewriting over >> it means that you loose old archives. > > If you have 1GB of data and a say 40GB hard disk that means about 40 > full backups on each. With incremental backups those would last much, > much longer. > > For your three disks you'd have 120 full backups! Of course in the case > of failure you'd loose 40 of them, instead of loosing one unreadable CD, > but I consider checking 120 CDs for unreadable sectors etc. a nightmare.
But isn't that putting all your eggs in one basket? (Unless I'm mis-reading you.) - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGVvAmS9HxQb37XmcRAryQAKCbn59hmgEmhMt3LmZm/sj7/jzPZACdF1g1 kac37iDVg9pkSSNIKX4F8vU= =HsST -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
