Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Hdds are soo fragile. They constantly break. A proper 3-2-1 backup solution is incomplete without tape IMHO.



At least HDDs are fast, cheap, don't have massive up-front investments. You can take a couple of HDDs, RAID them together for reliability and you can still write and read data at humane speeds.


A RAID array isn't a backup. Your data is still live on it, an "rm -rf" away from destruction. HDDs fare poorly when shelved for a long time, RAID are even worse in that regard. OTOH a tape on a shelf is perfectly safe for 5 to 10 years or more (I recently restored 1998/99 sensitive data from LTO2 tapes written in 2003).


>A RAID array isn't a backup.

Who said it was?

>Your data is still live on it, an "rm -rf" away from destruction.

How is accidental deletion not a problem with tapes?


Unless you store your tapes right next to your cache of neodymium magnets, that should be pretty easy. Writing to a tape is very deliberate generally. Much more than writing to disks.


With current software and hardware RAID solutions, we also have massive up-front cost. We can't buy drives as needed and add them to the system one at a time.

I wish it was easier to incrementally expand capacity of RAID setups. ZFS promises RAID-Z expansion but it still hasn't been released. Btrfs has a flexible block allocator that supports incremental expansion as well as heterogeneous drive pools but unfortunately the parity support cannot be relied upon to this day.


RAID is not reliable.

Source: Former HPE Storage dev.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: