On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:44:59AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
>No. But just relying on perfect hardware and concientious sysadmins is
>reckless. Hardware /is/ flaky, sysadmins /are/ (sometimes) lazy (and
>besides, today they are increasingly just plain Joe Sixpack users). Also,
>backing up a few hundred GiB is /not/ fun, and then keeping track of all
>the backups is messy.

Even home users have started to set up raid mirrors at home now that
disk space is cheap. That's a step in the right direction, I
suppose, with hardware never being good.

Taking backups in an environment where you need a few hundred GiB
backed up is not that difficult.

Get a separate, redundant box with a big tape changer and drop
periodical backups off at your bank's vault.

Get a separate, very reduntant box, with a truckload of proven 
drives in a separate raid box and run your stuff there.

Get both of the above.

If Joe Sixpack loses his mp3 collection, I don't really care,
nor should anyone else. Anything important enough to care
about is easy enough to back up. Always.

Arrogance? Maybe.

>Also, I'm not claiming that they are /solely/ responsible, but not having
>the filesystem fall apart utterly every time some bug breaths on it /is/ a
>requirement.

Reiserfs does not fall apart utterly every time some bug breaths on it.

>> *still trying to understand how that can be*
>You haven't been around too much yet, do you?

Rather I take backups, buy better hardware and understand there's a
risk involved.

Computers as a complete set can't be trusted, you can only make
the best accomodations you can.

-- 
mjt