BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Subject: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:59:59 -0400
- In-reply-to: <97c2d58b043cec45a810ac0fc51c84c2.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
- References: <6632cf71d55dabb34806494b44349729.squirrel@webmail.ci.net> <533884C8.4050006@gmail.com> <53388C0C.5060309@borg.org> <533891E9.8030600@gmail.com> <53389A03.8010707@borg.org> <5338A93F.4090907@gmail.com> <CAAbKA3WUgbBwWww3THHjJorMTusjzesK77koaPUCoVXEYRZNvA@mail.gmail.com> <533983C6.2010307@gmail.com> <97c2d58b043cec45a810ac0fc51c84c2.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
markw at mohawksoft.com wrote: > 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. You're missing the point. Say you have disk A and disk B. Every block written to A is replicated to B. Data on blocks on A are damaged. Damaged data blocks on A are replicated to B. B is now a 1:1 replica of the trashed data on A. -- Rich P.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- References:
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Index(es):