Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 06/12/07 13:04, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Did I *really* have to explain something that data centers have
> >> been doing since most of us were in diapers?
> >
> > Of course not, but you /do/ need to be more clear, especially for
> > non-English-as-first-language folks. What I think you mean is to
> > have each set older than the one before
>
> That can't happen unless you keep on buying disks.
>
> > as no matter what the number
> > they can't each be older than the other(s). Is that not correct?
>
> At a given point in time, one will have the newest data, and the
> others will have sequentially older data.
>
> I didn't really think I had to explain the simple concept of
> "rotating usage" to grown-ups.
>
To repeat myself, I do not question and do understand the concept of
data rotation. What I question is your usage of time and the language
in which it is (unclearly) cloaked. To quote your message to which I
first responded:
"I recommend having 2 (or more) drives off-site, each older than the
other."
We have here a usage problem relating to English, not anything really
to do with data or the storage thereof. To me it is plain that what
you wrote means that each <set of data> is older than the other
<sets of data>, a condition which cannot data> be obtained in reality
as we data> currently understand it.
Once again, no matter if it is data or you and me we/they can't each be
older than the other.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
