FC4 kernel performance

[Paul A Houle]

Rodd Clarkson wrote:

>I'm assuming you're talking about some sort of redundant raid (for
>protecting data), and not striped raid (for speed improvements).  While
>this is nice for situations where a HDD might fail, I don't see how this
>offers security in terms of data damage based on viruses, worms, malware
>or intrusions.  It doesn't matter how many 'redundant' drives you have
>if they all carry (in essence) the same information.  Two buggers copies
>of the same file are stiff two buggered copies.
>  
>
    Yeah,  but the conventional choices for backup are unacceptable and 
very few people will do them.

    My experience with tape is that restore off tape fails half the 
time.  I've had this experiences with 1990-vintage Suntape,  those 
stupid little QIC tapes,  and with more modern "enterprise" tape jukebox 
systems.

    Backing up onto CD or DVD is a joke:  if I've got 80 GB of files,  
that's a lot of DVDs,  and if I burn 80 GB of DVD's,  odds are one of 
them is going to be a coaster.  So I have to spend a few hours backing 
up and then verifying all of them.

    Incremental backups onto optical disk?  Multisession support is 
glitchy,  and it might work 20 times in a row,  but you'll get bit by 
some exceptional event at some point.

    Disk-based backup ~is~ viable in various forms.  For instance,  it's 
quite practical to back up stuff disk to a USB 2.0 or Firewire drive,  
and it will finish faster than paint dries.  I've found that network 
backup onto disks works too:  but anything that's marketed explictly as 
a product for backup seems to be a scam.