http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...osting_backup/

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...osting_backup/

What has that got to do with the title of your post dennis?

have you read it?

They think RAID is reliable, like a number of posters here. 8-)

WHO thinks RAID is reliable?

Raid isn't about reliability, its about availability.

It allows you to pass through the failure of a single disk with no loss
of availability.

I t cant cope with te loss of the single disk CONTROLLER or the
simultaneous loss of multiple disks.

My RAID base hosted virtual server is backed up nightly to my home
machine here.

But then I know a little about computers - unlike some.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 03/08/2012 13:42, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...osting_backup/

What has that got to do with the title of your post dennis?

have you read it?

I have, it has nothing to do with disk based backup.

They think RAID is reliable, like a number of posters here. 8-)

RAID introduces a level of fault tolerance and improves availability. It
is not a substitute for backup, and does not guarantee reliability.

As as a storey the article seems to cover a non event... Live storage
went down due to hardware failure, they replaced it and are in the
process of restoring from backup. Hardly news.

In fact it actually reflects quite well on the company concerned. Since
they are flogging virtual server hosting at only £40/year. It would be
rather unrealistic for customers to expect a complete live failover or
similar levels of protection. The fact that they are providing backup
recovery at all, or going to effort to restore customer's sites rather
than just telling them to re-upload them seems, like a decent level of
service.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...osting_backup/

What has that got to do with the title of your post dennis?

have you read it?

They think RAID is reliable, like a number of posters here. 8-)

WHO thinks RAID is reliable?

Raid isn't about reliability, its about availability.

Its about reliability if its used for backup.
Backup systems don't need to have high availability but they do need to be
reliable.


It allows you to pass through the failure of a single disk with no loss of
availability.

I t cant cope with te loss of the single disk CONTROLLER or the
simultaneous loss of multiple disks.

It can cope with thee failure of a disk controller, if you equip it to do
so.
They can also cope with the loss of more than one disk if they are equipped
to do so.


My RAID base hosted virtual server is backed up nightly to my home machine
here.

But then I know a little about computers - unlike some.

On Aug 3, 7:05*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...









dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...osting_backup/

What has that got to do with the title of your post dennis?

have you read it?

They think RAID is reliable, like a number of posters here. *8-)

WHO thinks RAID is reliable?

Raid isn't about reliability, its about availability.

Its about reliability if its used for backup.

Who was using RAID for backup? Not the outfit you referred to.

MBQ