-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/25/07 09:04, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: >> Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > [snip] >>> True. However, for a small data set (under 1 GB) the need for three >>> copies means three hard drives. Using a hard drive and rewriting over >>> it means that you loose old archives. >> If you have 1GB of data and a say 40GB hard disk that means about 40 >> full backups on each. With incremental backups those would last much, >> much longer. > >> For your three disks you'd have 120 full backups! Of course in the case >> of failure you'd loose 40 of them, instead of loosing one unreadable CD, >> but I consider checking 120 CDs for unreadable sectors etc. a nightmare. > > But isn't that putting all your eggs in one basket? (Unless I'm > mis-reading you.)
3 disks in three different locations (according to Douglas' requirements). You'd have backup 1,4,7,... on the first disk 2,5,8,... on the second and so forth. Johannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGVy6SC1NzPRl9qEURAmalAJ0Qftp3FxJurDTSx8bRs+PFXR3hbgCeJu8l 0WXMOX3cEjNIAMsKNmtbhpE= =+5Yz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
