On 02/25/2016 08:53 AM, jdd wrote:
performance is not the alpha and omega. Data security is
Security has three components which needs must be considered and balanced * Integrity * Confidentiality * Availability The "Availability" is what you two are arguing over. Availability in the face of a disaster - i.e. 'recovery' on the one hand, and availability in terms or immediate responsiveness - i.e. 'performance' in the case of the other. If you want to lay the "Security" card then you simply cannot ignore the other two components of security. If you want to play the 'recovery' card then you need to address it from the POV of risk management. Vojtěch is making the point that, in a limiting case, if the performance isn't there then people aren't going to be using the system enough for it to matter. Taking a step back, there are other ways to do 'recovery'. Not all applications need 'right up to this second' recovery. I keep my financial records in a database that 's backed up daily after changes. if it crashes between backups I still have the paperwork and can re-enter today's transactions. Its annoying, it tedious, but its not critical. But then I'm not a bank. The banks I've worked for use a different technique, a 'hot backup; every transaction gets entered to a second machine, a complete duplicate. If the 'main' machine goes down the 'hot backup' is there immediately. There are variations between these two and others beside. Its about Risk Management, which means considering the types of threats & failure modes, and other considerations. For example, a CoW instantaneous restore of the file system is not a lot of use of your primary computer, your whole IT centre has failed! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org