[Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?

[markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)]

> Bill Ricker wrote:
>> I've seen a big-name commercial block-replication solution duplicate
>> trashed data to the cold spare ... wasn't pretty !
>
> Another great example of how replication is not backup.

I call FUD! that is more of an example of how a bad program can corrupt data.

I currently work at a fairly high end deduplicated backup/recovery system
company. In a deduplicated system, a "new" backup should not ever be able
to trash an old backup. Period. Only "new" data is added to a deduplicated
pool and old references are untouched. Old data is not over-written. You
can see this behavior in almost any deduplication strategy, including
Windows NTFS and ZFS.

The problem with "backup" is that a petabyte is hard to backup and it is
very expensive.

The best solution is a "live" site and a "replication target." This will
protect you from natural disasters.

The MTBF of tape is far shorter than disk, and not much cheaper, if it is
cheaper per TB than tape at all.


>
> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>