[ale] ATL Colocation and file server suggestions

Jeff Lightner jlightner at water.com
Tue Jan 20 16:36:03 EST 2009


Amazing - there's a whole site (and of course a Wikipedia entry) related
to the original quote and misquotes derived therefrom:

http://pl251.pairlitesite.com/badges/index.shtml

I'll state I was quoting from Blazing Saddles rather than misquoting
from the original Sierra Madre movie they got it from.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lightner 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:22 PM
To: 'mhw at wittsend.com'; 'ale at ale.org'
Subject: RE: [ale] ATL Colocation and file server suggestions

Right - the little smiley was my indication I wasn't serious but rather
paraphrasing a movie villain.  We backup AND duplicate backups for
offsite storage.

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
Michael H. Warfield
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:46 PM
To: ale at ale.org
Cc: mhw at wittsend.com
Subject: Re: [ale] ATL Colocation and file server suggestions

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:15 -0500, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> Backups?  We don't need no stinkin' backups.

	Just as a reminder...  If it isn't obvious...

	Raid* / Mirror != Backup !!!!

	Why Mirroring Is Not a Backup Solution
	
http://journalspace.com/this_is_the_way_the_world_ends/not_with_a_bang_b
ut_a_whimper.html

	Appears that Journalspace had their database wiped at a high
level so
their mirrors were useless as a backup.

	They relied on Raid as a backup solution and they are no more.

> J

	Mike

>                                    
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Ken
> Ratliff
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] ATL Colocation and file server suggestions
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Jan 20, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With RAID5 you're still at risk from losing 2 drives and moreover it
> is ANY 2 drives.  At least with RAID10 you have to lose 2 specific
> drives at the same time.  You save nothing but space with RAID5
> configuration and your risk increases.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Oh, I know and I agree. Unfortunately, I've won the lottery with
> RAID10 enough that the once bitten, twice shy rule now applies. No
> matter what RAID configuration you're in, you're at risk. Thank god
> for dedicated backup servers.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or
> confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic
> transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you
> have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
> ----------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |
http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best
of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of
it!




More information about the Ale mailing list