In the situation I described, you refresh the archival copy (ie, you read in, and write it back out), but that wasn't directly talking about your problem, but about the response to use DLT because it supposedly has a longer lifetime.

ECC does not help you in the case of complete media failure, physical loss, etc. Offsite backups do ... yes, there is a risk of the backups becoming lost or corrupted.

Normally when archiving, you maintain some sort of a checksum in an attempt to verify that the archive hasn't become corrupted. (yes, checksums can't be used to verify data integrity from malicious behaviour, but the odds of there being a checksum collision purely by chance as the media degrades is very slight).

For what you're asking, with ECC, I wouldn't want to maintain that information on the same disk -- For the type of scenario that I'm describing, it's much more efficient overall to just make multiple copies, and store them seperately. If the main archive is found to be corrupt, then you go to the backup, then the second backup, etc. After a while, there's a limited return -- but you have to weigh what the cost of backups are against the risk and cost of a given loss.

From what you've described, the data is kept online -- so you could use something like tripwire to tell you when something's gone wrong, and in that case, restore from the backup. I was trying to provide what I believe to be a better alternative to what you were attempting to do -- of course, I don't know how often your data changes (if you're only keeping 40GB, but it changes daily, my recommendations aren't useful), but if it's just a matter of keeping some pictures in an online repository (ie, they get added to, but not modified).

Anyway, as I've gotten off on a tangent again -- ECC is for bit level corruption, not catastrophic failure, or even accidential file deletion. Full backups will protect against more types of potential loss. If you're really paranoid about your data, you could combine the two, but you'd have to see if the overall cost is justified for your particular situation.

In reply to Re^4: (OT) Redundant Backup by jhourcle
in thread (OT) Redundant Backup by fundflow

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.