hw wrote: > > The question is rather if it makes sense to have two full backups on the same > machine for redundancy and to be able to go back in time, or if it's better to > give up on redundancy and to have only one copy and use snapshots or whatever > to > be able to go back in time.
And for this, we have a clear answer: if you have two full backups on one machine, it is very likely that a disaster will kill them both. Therefore, you should consider it one full backup. Therefore, improving your functionality with some snapshot mechanism will make your life better without increasing your risk. You might consider identifying some subset of the data that you really, really care about, and using a locally encrypting remote backup service to make a second copy elsewhere -- or, if it doesn't change much, occasionally attaching a storage device, copying it, and moving the storage device to some safe location elsewhere. -dsr-
