On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:14:52AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > >- One onsite box mounting both storage boxes' nbd devices in raid1 and > > receiving/performing backups > > Don't like it. If users can access the backup box, or if (as per your last > point) the NAS-es (how the hell do you pluralize NAS, anyway?) are mounted > as RAID-1 or similar, then you've lost your backup. One worm or virus, or > one data corruption bug, and both your data stores are shot. Better to give > them use of one box, then keep the other just for backups such that your > risk of data damage on the second box is lower.
Which is why I placed the "performing" part. When I say receiving backups, I mean allowing users to send data to the backup storage. When I say performing backups, I mean having the backup server go to the users' systems and fetch the data. this last scenario should probably grant users read-only access to retrieve data. As you can see, this scenario also lends itself to disaster should the backup server be the victim of a worm/virus/bug such as you describe. Then again, no strategy will cover all chances. If you backup to another building, you are still not protected against some city-wide disasters such as a nuclear bomb (ok. that's stretching it a little too far, but it states the point). Taking your risk scenario to the limit, we'd have to have backups of backups of backups of ... Better define what will be considered "adequate data security" (TM) and plan a backup strategy to support that definition. Cheers, -- Javier Gostling D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
