-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-05-28 20:45, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Actually, IMO, an rsync job is safer than raid, it covers more failure modes, but not as fast.
It depends on how you define "safe". In my book, the longer a system runs without two identical copies, the less safe it is. There is no way an rsync copy will ever catch up with a RAID1 mirror.
A RAID system does not protect you against data corruption or filesystem corruption or human error. It only protects against HD hardware failure. If you delete a file by mistake, you may still have a copy in the rsync copy - which may have a photo taken each hour, so you can have several versions of the same file. Depends on how much space you dedicate to it. On a RAID, both copies are lost instantly. If my data is so important to need a raid, I absolutely must also have an rsync backup. If I can't have both, then it will only be the rsync copy. It could be designed a system doing the best of both worlds, working like a raid, but one of the sides being always incremental backup type, not a real mirror. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlVnjDwACgkQja8UbcUWM1yK9AD+OHlp7Myic5IBFwaar3+htIQn 2yB3qiFzKcg0wJHuQogBAI7brFGZeEPS2raU/sLOzBcWC3bGQJAc51kuvT8j5Gtp =KLOt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org