got the disk space and the bandwidth to spare so

salarua@sopuli.xyz to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 484 points –
28

You are viewing a single comment

I suppose remote backup is the only option for something that destroys everything in the area, but raid is essential anyway.

makes sense, I was hoping for a cheaper answer. Buying land (caz renting a server is the same as cloud storage isn't it?) somewhere is probly expensive.

If you know someone who lives somewhere else and also has a NAS, you can help each other by using each other for remote backup.

sadly I don't, now I need to talk this onto someone... I don't even know who'd be interested. But great idea, needs a lot of administrative work tho. And also leaving an open (pwd protected, but still an open port) connection to a storage server 24-7 does not sound very safe.

raid is essential anyway

Why? If there are offsite backups that can be restored in an acceptable time frame, what's still the point of RAID?

I'd say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.

1 more...
1 more...