Gregory Seidman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:00:46PM +0300, Reco wrote: > [...] > > PS There's that old saying, "RAID is not a substitute for a backup". > > What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID > > split-mirror" backup technique. Just saying.
... > It sounds to me like adding an iSCSI volume (e.g. from AWS) to the RAID as > an additional mirror would be a way to produce the off-site backup I want > (and LUKS means I am not concerned about encryption in transit). It also > sounds like you're saying this is not a good backup approach. Ignoring > cost, what am I missing? Three different things: resiliency in the face of storage failure: RAID. restoration of files that were recently deleted: snapshots. complete restoration of a filesystem: backup. (and technically, a fourth: complete restoration of points in time: archives). You can combine the approaches, but they can only be substituted in particular directions. A RAID alone doesn't give you protection against deleted files (or deleted filesystems), which is what a backup is for. -dsr-
