BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan

Subject: [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
From: jack at coats.org (Jack Coats)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:05:38 -0600
In-reply-to: <sjmwqu190r1.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
References: <99fba8fb525831c5781b02192f53e077.squirrel@webmail.ci.net> <51254B1D.4050503@blu.org> <sjmwqu190r1.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>

http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/02/20/180tb-of-good-vibrations-storage-pod-3-0/

A little off topic, but these guys have come out with 3.0 of their
'big NAS server' build.
Storage upgrade is mainly 3T to 4T drives (45 of them), but they do have other
refinements and learnings that have come along with this upgrade they
share in the blog post.

Worth the read for the uber-geeky.

Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
  - From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)

References:
- [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
  - From: richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)
- [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
  - From: gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)
- [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
  - From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)

Prev by Date: [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
Next by Date: [Discuss] Sample Contract for Technology / Software consultant
Previous by thread: [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
Next by thread: [Discuss] On-site backups revisited - rsnapshot vs. CrashPlan
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org