Re: [ OFFTOPIC ] Re: The Linux Kernel Project Management System

Edward S. Marshall (emarshal@logic.net)
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:46 -0500 (CDT)

On 27 Sep 1999, Nat Lanza wrote:
> Sorry for the sarcasm, but he's right. Filesystem corruption is NOT
> the problem of each individual application. If you stand to lose
> billions of dollars worth of data by losing a disk, then perhaps you
> should look into frequent backups.

I wouldn't even look that far. Backups are for a last resort. If you have
mission-critical storage needs, parity and mirroring are a bare-minimum
requirement. And by your numbers below, it's quite a bit cheaper to have
arrays of mirrored disks and standbys compared to spending $136k on a
software license that still can't completely save you from a hardware
failure.

Application-level support is certainly a bonus, but I'd have a hard time
believing it's a requirement for the project being discussed here.

-- 
Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net>       [ What goes up, must come down. ]
http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/               [ Ask any system administrator. ]






-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/