Slashdot Mirror


So You've Lost a $38 Billion File

smooth wombat writes "Imagine you're reformatting a hard drive so you can do a clean install but then realize that you have also reformatted the back up hard drive. No problem. You reach for your back up tapes only to find out that the information on the tapes is unreadable. Now imagine the information that is lost was worth $38 billion. This scenario is apparently what happened in July to the Alaska Department of Revenue. From the article: 'Nine months worth of information concerning the yearly payout from the Alaska Permanent Fund was gone: some 800,000 electronic images that had been painstakingly scanned into the system months earlier, the 2006 paper applications that people had either mailed in or filed over the counter, and supporting documentation such as birth certificates and proof of residence.' Using the 300 cardboard boxes containing all the information, staff worked overtime for several months to rescan everything at an additional cost of $200,000."

511 comments

  1. Time for... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Time for... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      He surely wouldn't want for a Second.

    2. Re:Time for... by thc69 · · Score: 1

      No, time for Google Seppuku.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    3. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmm ... government agency, so very little accountability. In fact, worker probably got a performance award for bringing the issue of poor backups to light.

    4. Re:Time for... by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2

      Data recovery.

      Geez guys! They can find the Pr0n you "deleted". I guess there needs to be more significant motivation than $38 Bil USD.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    5. Re:Time for... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for alleviating my ignorance.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    6. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I once deleted a file worth $38 billion. I was afraid my boss was going to fire me, but he shook my hand and laughed "Fire you?!! We just invested $38 billion in your education! We can't fire you after that kind of investment." And true enough, I never deleted a file worth that much again.

    7. Re:Time for... by avdp · · Score: 1

      According to the article, they tried to recover (although I am not sure Dell or Microsoft were the right vendors for that task) and it cost them $71,800.

    8. Re:Time for... by jadavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was actually only worth $200k, since that's the amount of money it took to recover from the problem.

      The fact that it was related to an account worth $38B is scary, but not the actual cost.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    9. Re:Time for... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      O.O

      Um. Do they not know the free tools to do so?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    10. Re:Time for... by nelsonal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It has to be worth more than $200k (or else the would have just written off the file). I agree that the info isn't worth the $38B though. The account would still be there even if those transactions weren't. That said I thought all the states learned the lesson of 9/11 of remote offsite backups especially in a state as geologically active as Alaska. Hope the warehouse with the paper isn't near the data center...

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    11. Re:Time for... by FunkyELF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't. Please inform us.

      Every time this happens to me I search around and find a bunch of tools that will only get you 5 files or will only get you files under 20kb or some other stupid restrictions.

    12. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah and that is like $666 a box to scan - I am sure you can find a company that will do it cheaper.

    13. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microfiche anyone?

    14. Re:Time for... by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 1

      It was actually only worth $200k, since that's the amount of money it took to recover from the problem.

      The fact that it was related to an account worth $38B is scary, but not the actual cost.

      If my brand new super deluxe car gets impounded and it costs me $200 to get it released from the impound lot, is my car only worth $200?
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    15. Re:Time for... by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Funny

      "they tried to recover and it cost them $71,800."

      they paid the neighbor kid $71,800 to run norton data recovery? That was a waste.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    16. Re:Time for... by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      i had a windows tool, i cant remember it right now, that could recover *everything* deleted, for nada, with no restrictions. i found this tool after my brother stupidly shorted the "erase" pins on his hard drive, instead of switching from slave to cable-select.

      so i put his drive in my pc, ran the utility....and it found everything. except, of course,all the filenames and data were gone (this was his mp3 storage drive) and i told him "Well, either you re-burn all your cds with the CDDB info automatically generated, or you play *every* file one at a time, rename it, and re-enter the ID3 tags"

      he re-burned

      cant recall the name of the tool right now, however. it was a windows tool that could read from FAT16/32 partitions only, iirc. meh

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    17. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia... oh wait...

    18. Re:Time for... by fbjon · · Score: 1
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    19. Re:Time for... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      http://www.g-loaded.eu/2006/12/08/more-data-recove ry-tools/

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    20. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bukkake?

    21. Re:Time for... by nasch · · Score: 1

      If you must go with the car analogy, it's more like losing your key and saying "zoinks! I just lost my $85,000 car key!"

    22. Re:Time for... by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      I had a crash of an early beta reiser4 file system (yes, I was a moron for using a beta fs, but it was mostly data that I didn't care about or could recreate), and recovered all my mp3s, but with no filenames. It was pretty easy to write a script that used id3 tag reading tools to rename all the files. It would not be that hard to write such a script on windows either. At least easier than re-ripping his entire CD collection.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    23. Re:Time for... by beckerist · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Spend $80 and be legit. Better than $200,000, legal, and probably just as easy.

    24. Re:Time for... by Azrael43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've found PhotoRec [1] to be excellent for recovering, for example, photos deleted from a memory card (friend's mistake, not mine). It will also recover other most other file formats and appears to handle various filesystems. There is another program called TestDisk available at the same site which is meant to fix corrupted filesystems. -Azrael- [1] http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec

    25. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful?
      The Labor Theory of Value is nonsense, not insight.
      In fairness to the parent, though, it is not as stupid as the original claim that the file was worth $38 billion.

    26. Re:Time for... by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you must go with the car analogy, it's more like losing your key and saying "zoinks! I just lost my $85,000 car key!"
      It's actually Velma's car and she said, "Jinkies! I'm locked out of the Mystery Machine!"
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    27. Re:Time for... by elhaf · · Score: 1

      well, the data could have been worth $38 billion. What you are saying is that if it had cost only $12 to run Norton and recover it, then it was worth $12. The data is the data, worth what it is worth. The fact that they had to go to the hardcopy backup to recover it doesn't change its value. Value is determined by what someone will pay for it.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    28. Re:Time for... by acidrain · · Score: 1

      No, I get the feeling from the original post that the backup drive was in the same machine as the original, that the tape was kept in the admins desk next to his portable speakers, and that the paper copies were in a locker next to the paper recycling area.

      --
      -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    29. Re:Time for... by FunkyELF · · Score: 1

      If the song and artist and such were inside of ID3 tags he could have used Tag&Rename or some other type of tool to generate filenames based on ID3s.

      Works great the otherway around too...I generate ID3s based on filenames so that my stupid iPod will show them in the list.

    30. Re:Time for... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That's like claiming that a $5000 ring is only worth $30 because that is what it cost to have it resized. The cost to resolve the problem was $200k that doesn't mean the data wasn't worth $38bil.

    31. Re:Time for... by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get the UBCD or UBCD4Win for some good tools. Particularly, UBCD4Win includes several freeware and open source tools for file recovery. My favorite happens to be testdisk, followed closely by Restoration. (Make sure, if you use the UBCD4Win, you build these tools into ISO. Just follow the directions at the site, it is real easy.)

    32. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly PC Inspector? (http://www.pcinspector.de/file_recovery/UK/welcom e.htm) It doesn't have all the features of some of the paid programs, but probably good enough for the average home user that accidentally formats their file library. ADRC Data Recovery Tools is another free one (http://www.adrc.net/data_recovery_software/).

      For mass renaming of MP3s, The Godfather (http://users.forthnet.gr/the/jtclipper/) works with CDDB info or ID3 tags. It's also freeware.

    33. Re:Time for... by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1

      In essence:

      File = $38 Billion
      Mistake = $200K

      ***Warning! Bad Car analogy ahead!***

      If I lose my $12,000 car, and it takes $1500 to recover it, that doesn't mean my car is only worth $1500.

      --
      "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
    34. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what a little birdie whispered in my ear :

      -----------

      "The hard drive in question was not 're-formatted' or 'accidentally deleted' - it was part of Dell SAN and it FAILED - actually, several drives (or perhaps the controllers themselves) failed. Hardware failure - should have been no big deal - that's why God invented BACKUPS - and especially so, as it was a brand new SAN which had enough storage for two of these DB's - EXCEPT - the hardware guy had been using the extra hard disk space to do periodic backups of the main DB - so when the drives failed there was no extra room on the disks to backup the failing DB to disk. So it should still have been ok right ? EXCEPT the disk backups on the SAN were not really 'recent'. Which STILL should have been no big deal right ? EXCEPT the backups on tape were neither full NOR recent. Keep in mind these guys had (for years) assured the software guys whose DB it was that backups (hourly incremental and weekly full) had been proceeding on a regular basis.

      Interestingly enough, ultimate responsibility for this snafu resides at the top (as it often does) - the tech in question had been burdened with doing not only his job but that of his manager (who had moved on) for months beforehand. Upper management (especially the in-duh-vidual) quoted in the CNN article as not wanting a 'witch hunt' was in fact one of the people that made this guy's life so unbearable that dangerous shortcuts were taken.

      I guess wouldn't be sanctioning a 'witch hunt' either - if I were one of the main witches.

      Granted the tech should have stood his ground and done the backups - but they made it seem like he would get promoted if he kept taking shit and he is generally a fairly nice mild-mannered guy anyways - so he toed the line and a boatload of money and time was lost. Incidentally, his manager eventually came back - and the tech went back to his old gig - but regular backups were still never made part of the regular procedures."

      -----------------

      Seems the media didn't really get the whole story did they ?

    35. Re:Time for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like the system that was trashed :

      download.microsoft.com/documents/customerevidence/ 26307_Alaska_PFD_SQL.doc

      "The Alaska Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division, managed a multitude of disconnected and continually failing technologies, housing several terabytes of data, with only a six-person IT staff. It needed a new data infrastructure to support its operations, which includes the distribution of between U.S.$500 million and a billion in dividends to approximately 630,000 Alaskans each year. Using Microsoft® SQL Server(TM) 2005 Enterprise Edition, the organization's new data warehouse contains 15 million images of historical and current documents, and has the ability to scale to support the roughly 3 million images added each year. After deployment, the PFD Division was able to integrate disparate technologies, increase infrastructure reliability and scalability, greatly improve operations and IT efficiency, and will ultimately save hundreds of thousands of dollars per year."

    36. Re:Time for... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Except the file wasn't worth $38 billion. That's like saying if you lose your bank statement, you've lost your life savings.

    37. Re:Time for... by dumas777 · · Score: 1

      From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/21/alaskan_bi llion_dollar_wipe/ - "The technician given the fix assignment -- who mercifully is kept anonymous but herein known as Johnny McBunglepants -- was advised by the Dell specialist to unbind then bind the two partitions (LUNs) that were corrupted after a first attempt to correct the error failed." LMAO what IT help desk or Best Buy doesn't have mostly Johnny Mac?

  2. Tapes? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Just curious... do most people still use *tape* for backup? Personally, I use multiple hard drives and a DVD burner on a daily basis.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Tapes? by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yea, tape is pretty common. DVD burners simply aren't rated for backups as some burned DVDs don't have a very long shelf life. Now sounds like some screwed up in purchasing cheap tapes as well. Oh no.

      BTW article is silly, the file isn't worth $38 billion $200K at best because thats the cost of rescanning everything. Would be interesting to see an accounting record of how much recreating all the documents would cost had they not had a hard copy.

    2. Re:Tapes? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      yeah they do - when it is more than a couple boxes in ma's basement.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Tapes? by teflaime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most ENTERPRISES still have tape at some level as part of a comprehensive disaster recovery plan. Tape is easy to offsite, fairly reliable overall and still have comprehensive support available in all platforms. Most INDIVIDUALS don't do backups at all.

    4. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in corporate environments where an off-site strategy is needed, tape backups are pretty much still in use..unfortunately since they are a pain to deal with.

      although lately i have seen more disk based backups with multiple rotating external disks.

    5. Re:Tapes? by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Indeed. For super-critical, but not super-massive, data like this especially. I use a couple of external 250GB hard drives to back up my data fast. Then I take one of the HD's home with me for off-site storage. The best part is, there's never a 'restore' period! Just plug the external into the PC and a 'removable device' appears in 'my computer'.

      Of course, if you need to store terabytes upon terabytes of data, tape may still by the only option....

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    6. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so how long does it take to burn a terabyte or 2 to dvds?
      most 'people' never used tape anyway. corporation and government systems do.

    7. Re:Tapes? by greginnj · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really? For what volume of data? For people with 100s of GB of transactional data, tape robots are pretty much the only option, or you'll be spending your whole day swapping DVDs. OTOH, it sounds like this was relatively static data (since it could be re-entered from paper), so maybe a DVD version would have been an appropriate measure as well. There's also a lesson here that you should frequently do test restores from backup tapes.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    8. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmm...this should translate to:

      Just curious...do most people still think differently then I do? Because I do something one way, so should everyone else. Did I mention I am also unable to empathize?

      --AC

    9. Re:Tapes? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Tape works just fine, espcially for large amounts of data.
      They maynot of been maintaining their tapes, or they were using low quality equipment, or it was just one of those things.

      For the illogical 'anti-tape' crowd, I will point uot that they did have a problem with the hard drive as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Tapes? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tape works great if you are willing to spend big bucks for top-class hardware. Unfortunately, most people try to get by with the cheap stuff, which is very unreliable. Try to explain to a manager why you need a $50K tape system to backup a $10K server. Computers have gotten very cheap, high-quality tape transports haven't.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Tapes? by varmittang · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when you have a good 300+ gigs of data that needs to be backed up daily, me sitting there burning DVDs are not the way its going to get done.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    12. Re:Tapes? by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hm. Tapes with a proven shelf life of many, many years, or DVDs where a single scratch can render 4GB of data worthless. I wonder which enterprises (or governments) should chose?

    13. Re:Tapes? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      BTW article is silly, the file isn't worth $38 billion $200K at best because thats the cost of rescanning everything. Would be interesting to see an accounting record of how much recreating all the documents would cost had they not had a hard copy. You're assuming the physical documents still exist. The purpose in scanning the documents may have been to cut down on physical storage requirements.
    14. Re:Tapes? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the summary states that the files were rescanned at a cost of $200,000 -- so it sure sounds like the hard copies were preserved.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Tapes? by Itninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy to offsite???

      I work for an IT organization and we pay a company called Iron Mountain $100's monthly to schlep our boxes and boxes of backup tapes to their offsite storage facility.

      And remember there is a difference between making 'backups' (store my important files somewhere else so I can get them in case of a system failure) and preparing for 'disaster recovery' (store everyones files somewhere else so we can rebuild the entire infrastructure in case the building burns to the ground).

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    16. Re:Tapes? by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      Tapes are still widely used in the industry. It scares me how many companies may be choosing the convenience of DVD over the stability of tape. I've seen digital 8mm digital (exabyte) tapes survive unharmed 10 years in an attic where temperatures ranged from 15F-150F and yet I've seen CDs and DVDs without a scratch on them mysteriously stop working after less than 2 years. As for hard drives, they can be made part of a viable storage technology, but the drives themselves are notoriously unreliable. I'd use RAID5/RAID6/Z with some sort of parity checking filesystem (e.g. ZFS on BSD or OpenSolaris).

    17. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operative word here is "personally"

      When you can manage to fit over 2-3 terabytes of daily backups onto some sort of DVD cycle, let me know.

      DVDs, or even blue-monkey-super-HD++-extra-super-sized-VDs or whatever, simply don't cut it.

      Most places now do some sort of hierarchical backup, with spool drives and phased migration to tape, but tape is still king for streaming speed, retention, data integrity, and most importantly capacity, for removable backup media.

      Now please excuse me while I try to figure out what to do when our LTO III robots won't cut it anymore either.

    18. Re:Tapes? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Ah. I missed the "re" part of "rescanned". I thought that was the cost of the initial digitization.

    19. Re:Tapes? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Yep. Hard drives and DVDs are backup media, tape is disaster recovery media. DVDs are not durable enough nor do they really hold enough (tape has much better density; 400GB per LTO3 tape compared to 9GB per DL-DVD.) Tape is still the undisputed king for long-term, high capacity backups.

      For home use, online backups are fine, but for even small businesses, volumes of data approaching 1TB are not uncommon.

    20. Re:Tapes? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yup. You can get 160GB onto a tape, each tape costs a lot less than a disk drive and is more reliable. But they are becoming less common. The price difference is falling and the drives are expensive.

    21. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      May not "of" been? What the fuck?

      May not HAVE been, you idiot.

    22. Re:Tapes? by balbord · · Score: 1

      NEVER trust tapes.
      I don't!
      Bastards!

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
    23. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For super-critical, but not super-massive, data like this especially. I use a couple of external 250GB hard drives to back up my data fast. Then I take one of the HD's home

      You take your companies confidential data and leave it lying around at home? Please tell me you're joking.

    24. Re:Tapes? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I would be somewhat carefully of using drives like that. At least have a backup of them. I used to think the same thing until coworker fell down the stairs with one for no apparent reason. It trashed the drive and caused some issues. We were lucky in that it was just a copy of data being moved from one machine to another were the net transfer was taking too long and slowing the network down for everyone else.

      The drive has too many failure points to be moved reliably like that. It isn't that they cannot be moved or that they aren't very worth using. It is the super-critical part that scares me. Tapes don't have as many points that are sensitive like this.

    25. Re:Tapes? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Sure, but could you give me a hand with this 28-foot 15TB DVD?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    26. Re:Tapes? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      When you have masses of tapes from dozens of multi-drive servers then you have the issue of trying to figure out what tape has what on it. You hope the person labeling them did it clearly and actually kept records of what the labels meant.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    27. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Tapes with a proven shelf life of many, many years, or DVDs where a single scratch can render 4GB of data worthless.

      Yeah, magnetic tapes NEVER get damaged. EVER!

      And with DVDs, a single small scratch makes the entire disc unreadable. After all, the data is stored right at the surface, on the plastic, and scratches can't be repaired, or polished away. And DVDs are seriously damaged by static electricity...

      It's a shame nobody has ever come up with some sort of tool that would calculate parity information to allow small damaged portions to be trivially easily be recovered.

      --
      Face it, tapes are used because of their size, not their reliability. Splitting hundreds of GBs across DVDs would be a tricky task. Possibly a labor-intensive nightmare, if not when backing-up, then at least when restoring.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    28. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What, you think it would be easier to store hard drives off site? How else are you going to store it? If the tapes are off-site they form a part of your DR plan; you hire in a new machine (or if you've got the budget, already have a DR site ready to go) and get the tapes back from the off-site and restore. This isn't rocket science.

      P.S: Iron Mountain are a waste of space. We found another, much smaller, company to handle our tapes after Iron Mountain fucked up one too many times.

    29. Re:Tapes? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yea, tape is pretty common. DVD burners simply aren't rated for backups as some burned DVDs don't have a very long shelf life.

      Huh? Maybe the technology has changed since the olden days when I worked in IT, but I thought most tapes had a shelf life of maybe 6 months.

    30. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      we pay a company called Iron Mountain $100's monthly to schlep our boxes and boxes of backup tapes to their offsite storage facility.

      That's not expensive at all. What makes you think some other storage method would make manpower and storage facilities cheaper?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    31. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. He fooled you. He doesn't work at any company, he just sweeps the floors.

    32. Re:Tapes? by Sobrique · · Score: 5, Informative
      In a backup system where you're taking full backups once a week, even with no data churn at all, you end up backing 1/7th of your estate every night. Starts getting a real challenge at about the 15Tb mark, and becomes a whole new adventure in pain when you're talking 100-200Tb.

      And then of course, you have 'churn' to worry about. Now, my company does use disk as part of it's backup strategy. Backup to disk and snapshot copies are valuable.

      But, well, if you're doing full backups weekly, incremental (or differential) daily, then you're in practice backing up 450% of your 'live' storage every month.

      Even onto 'cheap' disk, that gets spendy _very_ fast. That's even before you consider the need to offsite your data for disaster recovery. Tape's still the only real viable way of doing that in bulk. Whilst you can replicate storage arrays, the hardware and bandwidth to do this is also horrifically expensive, especially if you're doing that 1-for-1.

      Some people do. Where I work at the moment, 4 of everything is bought, and that includes storage. 1 for dev, one for test, one for production and one for DR. But this kind of thing, does not come cheap, and ... well, no one's going to spend that kind of sum of money (millions) trivially.

    33. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not even close. We use LTO2 tapes and keep them offsite for 18 months. We've run several test recoveries on tapes > 12 months old with success. Some of our tapes have been in circulation for about 24 - 30 months now and are still writing without difficulty. For restoration purposes, the actual media is rarely the problem. Changes in encryption passwords (with a poorly documented history), files in use, and lost/orphaned files are the most common reasons for restoration failure.

    34. Re:Tapes? by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've actually always found it rather easy.

      Get the person with the purse strings to go through the 'cost of downtime' calculation.

      Lead them throught it, point out all the lovely parts like contractual obligations (engineering companies tend to need to keep designs for long long periods of time) or 'regulations' (Sarbanes-Oxley has a lot to answer for).

      Add in the cost of x many people not working for a week.

      Include the 'well, can our business still function if we lose our customer database'.

      And if that really doesn't work, then clearly your last resort is artificially induced panic, where you raise the possibility of 'something important' being gone, and unrecoverable. Payroll records are a good example, as that's a personal terrror as well as a 'problem for the company'.

    35. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      in such case, you simply use a decent backup tool with barcoded tapes.

    36. Re:Tapes? by tim_uk · · Score: 1

      You hope the person labeling them did it clearly and actually kept records of what the labels meant.

      No, that what barcodes and enterprise level backup software is for ...

    37. Re:Tapes? by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      well, no one's going to spend that kind of sum of money (millions) trivially.

      Spending millions when the data in question is worth billions? Sounds like smart investment to me.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    38. Re:Tapes? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You haven't worked for a government agency, have you?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    39. Re:Tapes? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Indeed. For super-critical, but not super-massive, data like this especially.

      I wish TFA actually specified how much data this was. When I ran a big scanning project for my office, I was getting an average of 500 megs per 4-drawer filing cabinet. This of course varied widely since there was nowhere near a constant number of pages per drawer or cabinet. They did say "300 cardboard boxes." Assuming document boxes, and that they manage to stuff an entire filing cabinet into a single document box, let's be conservative and give them 1 gig per box. That's 300 gigs. I don't care how much I trust IT. If I have data that cost $200,000 to scan in the first place, a few hundred bucks on a couple of external drives is a great insurance policy against the unthinkable.

    40. Re:Tapes? by avdp · · Score: 1

      The capacity of a DVD is still nowhere near the capacity of tape. To do daily backups of hundreds of gigs or even terrabytes on DVDs would be ridiculously unpractical. So yes, tapes are still the norm for backups in the enterprise market... Not by choice, but for lack of other options.

    41. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      High Availability will always trump Disaster Recovery. Build a highly resilient system for your services and recovering from a disaster should be a non-issue. This involves building scalability, redundancy, and replication into every critical application. Additionally, backups are still a good source of recovery for corrupted and then replicated data. The biggest problem is ensuring that you can recover the data within a reasonable time frame. That's why we are moving to a Falconstor VTL and Single Instance Repository solution to ensure a deduplicated backup set that is replicated to our hot site. $1200/year is a small cost in comparison to the cost of recovery loss sue to a local disaster like fire or flood.

    42. Re:Tapes? by MrNougat · · Score: 1, Funny

      And remember there is a difference between making 'backups' (store my important files somewhere else so I can get them in case of a system failure) and preparing for 'disaster recovery' (store everyones files somewhere else so we can rebuild the entire infrastructure in case the building burns to the ground).


      You've got that wrong. Disaster Recovery is recovery from system failure, whether it be caused by natural disaster, malicious acts, or hardware failure. "Store my important files somewhere else so I can get them in case of a system fail^H^H^H^H I do something stupid and lose them because of my own mistake" is Idiot Recovery.

      No, I will not call back a tape from two weeks ago because you made a mistake and saved over your Excel spreadsheet the wrong way, or because you managed to delete something because you're sloppy with a mouse.

      You, user, are in control of your own data. You are responsible for its appropriate handling and content. I am responsible for only its appropriate storage, and not its content.
      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    43. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      I thought most government agencies with enterprise level data storage were on either Veritas, Net Backup, or Commvault. All of which support tape barcodes that can be organized whether or not the library has a robotic arm and barcode scanner. I can see smaller agencies using non-enterprise class versions of Veritas, but as you remove software management layers from things, you'd better be hiring competent enough employees to get tape rotation and labeling correct.

    44. Re:Tapes? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I know people who routinely recover data from tapes that are 30+ years old. Tape can last a long time if it was manufactured and stored properly.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    45. Re:Tapes? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm is misplaced; you _can_ render the data on a DVD unreadable/unaccessible because of a scratch.

      Besides, the chemicals in recordable DVDs (the recordable substrate) have been recently found not to be very stable. Their decay increases greatly at increased temperatures and, expecially, under UV from the sun.

      Don't take my word for it: if you have a decent collection of tecorded DVDs, at least 3 years old, check whether you can read them all perfetly. Prepare for some surprises.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    46. Re:Tapes? by devnull17 · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, you could go out and buy something like this. I've seen one of these things in action, and while it might be overkill for all but the biggest operations, it's still really, really damn cool.

    47. Re:Tapes? by lukas84 · · Score: 1

      The one thing i've always wondered about this (i only do SMB stuff), is how you do _complete_ disaster recovery with one of these tapes.

      So, basically you have a box full of tapes. With barcodes on them. So how do you restore the first server?

    48. Re:Tapes? by segfaultcoredump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HA is not the same as DR

      I can have a simple HA cluster that involves two nodes attached to a single disk array, all sitting in the same rack somewhere. Take a guess what happens when the power for the building goes out?

      HA is nice, but will do nothing for you in the event of a disaster.

      You can structure your site so that you get both, but doing so requires a lot more work (stretched clusters and SAN's spread over miles) and you have to be careful that you dont trash your performance while you are at it. (real time replication over distance involves latency, and you have to be careful about what that will do to your app)

    49. Re:Tapes? by Itninja · · Score: 1

      There' this cool new thing out there. It's called data encryption. You should look it up.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    50. Re:Tapes? by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

      I work for a large publishing company and our IT dept. still uses tape backups that run every night and backup the network. They recycle the tapes every two weeks so that's as far back as the backup goes, which I guess is fine. I've needed it once for a file I deleted off the network that I didn't have saved to my hard drive and they got it for me within an hour or so. I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it.

    51. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He may of been you sing a speech to text program you in sensitive clod

    52. Re:Tapes? by psycho_eddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to think the same thing until coworker fell down the stairs with one for no apparent reason.

      riiiiight...wink, wink, nudge, nudge :-)

      --
      your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs...i see through you - another dead hero
    53. Re:Tapes? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me a better, cheaper way to get the data offsite? Even running through LTO3 tapes once is cheaper than the equivalently equipped offsite storage with servers, admin staff, power, and fat internet connection. Plus I have many generational copies to attempt restore from whereas offsite rotational media gives me basically a few tries before I run out of space or spare drives. Restore from rotating media is faster, but I still don't think it's more reliable. Optimally I have both, or even better I have disk based backup both onsite and offsite as well as tape offsite at a third location.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    54. Re:Tapes? by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      Most people who have more than a couple gigs to back up use tape. The reliability and mass storage capability of tape cannot be beat. Not to mention the ease of use, standardization, and if you have a library, the accessability.

      using multiple hard drives and DVD burning is for non-enterprise backups. It works pretty well (buffallo terrastation) for small business who dont store mass amounts of information. But find a DVD burner or hard drive solution that allows me to backup 17 remote sites and about 10 Terrabytes of information in a reasonable amount of time that isnt tape, let me know.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    55. Re:Tapes? by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, I can put a box-worth (or two) of tape data on a single external HD and take it to our companies safe-deposit box. The drives are $300 each and the safe-deposit box is like $100/year. So there you go. Offsite storage, exponentially faster restore time, and massive data redundancy (if you get a few hard drives).

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    56. Re:Tapes? by Carnivore · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Tapes, though linear and expensive, are still the best solution for many backups. Mine, for example. I have an LTO3 drive, which gets me about 600 GB of data on a tape with compression.

      And once it's written, I can throw the tape in my backpack and ride home with it, not worrying about heads banging into platters. The tapes are about $100, which is close to par with hard drives now (400 GB native), but in the not too distant future, LTO4 will be out, which doubles the capacity.

    57. Re:Tapes? by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Our agency is looking into a hotsite (luckily have fiber run to a remote site). The dream is to be running a monster VMware ESX box for when the building blows up, a heck of a lot cheaper than an offsite tape backup, but right now it is just a pipe dream :)

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    58. Re:Tapes? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***Hm. Tapes with a proven shelf life of many, many years, or DVDs where a single scratch can render 4GB of data worthless. I wonder which enterprises (or governments) should chose?***

      Neither? The historical record is pretty clear. Depending on tape for your only copy of critical data is roughly equivalent to removing the bulb from the Check Engine light in your car. You'll probably get away with it, but you have only yourself to blame if it turns out that you have made an expensive mistake.

      And no, I don't think writable DVDs are highly reliable storage either. Even if the write is OK, I don't think anyone knows what their lifetime for digital data is going to be. Judging from writable CDs, maybe not all that many years .

      Maybe "Both" is OK if a high probability of recovering the data from one media or the other is good enough.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    59. Re:Tapes? by Miseph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ;rolleyes:

      There really isn't anything "Insightful" about pointing out a grammar error. Making personal insults isn't either.

      C'mon mods, this is just embarrassing.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    60. Re:Tapes? by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1


      And even then the data itself is only worth what it would have cost to re-document or got through the litigation of not having it. A lot of money to be sure, but not 38 billion.

    61. Re:Tapes? by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      I have, but your statement is spot on. Whereas we may use an up to date version of veritas with good labels. I have seen other agencies and shivers run down my spine....thats what you get when you hire and promote whoever is available for the lowest dollar.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    62. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I worked for a company that used Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain was unable to produce about half the tapes we believed they stored. They were at least partially to blame; after I mentioned missing tapes, they "found" a few more. (Their drivers also had a habit of leaving behind extra cases when we had more than one.) Of course, this was the first ever audit for our company! Our records were absolute crap and ultimately I was only able to account for those tapes done during my time with the company and a few others. The rest were all marked as "lost" in our system and I left the company for other reasons shortly thereafter.

    63. Re:Tapes? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I have to laugh, at my last firm, I had to make the DR plan. it was real simple, every Thursday evening I would turn on the back up server software that I configured to mirror every-ones file's and setup's. Friday morning, I would shut it down, disconnect it, put it in my bosses car and grab the other back-up server. it was simple and cost effective. I also created a manual that was 40 pages long on how to restore.

      It was simple and dumb, but it worked like a charm.

      we had to utilize it already, since our office got flooded, and the boss picked me up, went to comp-USA picked up a few computers, and we had the office running in 9 hours.

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    64. Re:Tapes? by dwarfking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Continuity planning can be complicated based on the environment, and quite often overlooked until the first time it is needed.

      Few companies maintain sufficient hardware of their own for true disaster recovery purposes. In most cases like that, the organization will have redundant data centers that are probably used in a load sharing model. Hopefully one data center can carry the full load of the critical activities if the other goes down. For these organizations, backup tapes are really intended for a complete disaster at all sites that would require acquiring new hardware.

      Other organizations have agreements with firms like Sunguard and IBM for cold sites. These vendors guarantee a certain square footage in their own data centers. They then work with the client to understand the exact hardware and software requirements that would be needed in case the cold site needs to go hot. In these instances, the tapes are shipped to the Sunguard or IBM site and loaded on machines as quickly as possible. The contracts normally give the vendor a minimum amount of time to stand up hardware and load the software and data, governed a great deal by how much data needs loading.

      Just a note, if your company is deciding on going the hosted DR route, make sure before hand that you have agreement from your software vendors that your license allows you to load their software outside your organization. I worked at one company that didn't have that in their original software contracts and had to spend more money with the software vendors when they created a DR plan. Many software vendors won't mention this little detail.

      Most often I've seen backup tapes used when for example an important database table was dropped accidentally. The last good backup tape was loaded and the database completely restored to get back to production. This is what you'd think of as single system disaster recovery.

    65. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4 Node (2 active and 2 passive) cluster attached to continuous replicating SANs. 2 nodes (1 active and 1 passive) & 1 SAN onsite, 2 nodes & the other SAN in a remote side, CoLo, or hot site. That's our basic design for critical applications. Active nodes provide network load balancing while the passive nodes allow us failover potential. Granted the cost for such a solution is extremely high, but in an enterprise environment where 3 days of downtime cost more than an entire year of housing and bandwidth the cost definitely justifies the cost. One of the nice features of having remote locations is that you can essentially drop nodes in them and use them as hot sites. They are already housing dedicated bandwidth to the central office, so that aspect becomes a non-issue. Additionally, that configuration allows our hot site to be a true DR location for offsite testing and rebuilding boxes and services. Again, this solution is not cost effective for all businesses, and your assessment of the HA design you've given is fully accurate. There's an element of better availability, but the architecture leaves a lot to be desired for many enterprise concerns. Ultimately, both HA and DR are financial concerns that dictate what a company can afford to spend... and that ultimately determines architecture.

    66. Re:Tapes? by Tet · · Score: 1
      Just curious... do most people still use *tape* for backup?

      As opposed to...? DVDs may work for a home machine, but they're woefully inadequate for serious use. Tapes still rule the roost in most cases, although when I last specified a serious backup system (several TB of data), I went for backing up to disk instead. Tapes are just not keeping up with the capacity increases of hard drives, and backing up to disk is cost effective and performs well.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    67. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you recover a partially damaged encrypted file how?

      I back up terabytes every month to an LTO2 robotic library, have fun burning that to DVD at your "job".

    68. Re:Tapes? by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      that's great if you ever have a disaster that occurs within the bank's operating hours!

    69. Re:Tapes? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just curious... do most people still use *tape* for backup? Personally, I use multiple hard drives and a DVD burner on a daily basis.

      I guess it depends on what you're backing up...

      Of all our clients, the smallest backup we've got is about 14 GB. That's too big for a single DVD-R, but it fits just fine on a DDS3. We can also easily automate a tape backup - just instruct a secretary or someone to swap the tape in the morning. Tapes are reasonably durable too...more rugged, in general, than a removable HDD. Of course, that's all for the little backups...

      Some of our clients are backing up 400+ GB of data on a daily basis. I guess you could use some kind of removable HDD...or go through a stack of DVDs every day... Or you could just use a single LTO-3 tape.

      And that's just our clients. We don't have any monstrously huge backups to deal with. Some places have literally TerraBytes of data to back up... While I'm sure a good amount of that goes into some kind of RAIDed SAN/NAS...a robotic tape library starts making a lot more sense than a pile of HDDs or DVDs.
      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    70. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that sounds familiar. We regularly had boxes delivered with missing tapes, which was the first problem. Then one day we had our box, with someone elses tapes in it. We assume our tapes went on a short holiday and someone else had an equally surprising time when they opened their box. Given that at least one competitor of ours is based in close proximity to us, and could easily have been on the same tape 'round, that was the point at which we decided to can Iron Mountain. When the time came to retrieve all of our tapes so we could transfer them someplace else, they had a hell of a time locating around 100 tapes we'd placed in long-term storage (These were DDS4, a few years ago now). At that point we were hardly surprised.

      The new guys have been brilliant though. We've not had a single problem with them in over two years.

    71. Re:Tapes? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      And with DVDs, a single small scratch makes the entire disc unreadable. After all, the data is stored right at the surface, on the plastic, and scratches can't be repaired, or polished away. Of course you know the data is stored on the label side. With a lot of cheaper DVDRs, it's trivial to scratch that and take out the storage medium in the process. Scratching on the bottom is rarely the problem.

      And DVDs are seriously damaged by static electricity... There's always microwaving on high for 2 seconds... :)
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    72. Re:Tapes? by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      Several others have made points about the quality of tape drives and proper maintenance and I think they're both well taken.

      A Sys admin I knew several years back wound up trying to do a restore because of an upgrade that went awry. He figured it would be a good idea to clean the heads before doing the restore since it had been a while since the last cleaning. Turns out that after the cleaning, he could no longer read the backup tapes. He probably would have been fine if he hadn't cleaned the heads as there was apparently a small piece of grit on the head that was scratching all the tapes in exactly the same place. These were all readable before he cleaned the heads. Or better he should have cleaned the heads before he took his final backups. He never was able to get the data restored for his client. It wasn't $38 billion, but in the end they lost about 2 years worth of data and weren't very happy about it.

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    73. Re:Tapes? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Easy to offsite???

      I work for an IT organization and we pay a company called Iron Mountain $100's monthly to schlep our boxes and boxes of backup tapes to their offsite storage facility.

      You seem to be implying that this is somehow difficult, at least I assume this by the three question marks following "easy to offsite". Personally, I'd rather have a company that is insured and accountable for the safety and preservation of my data -- the company I work for generates a lot of data (billions of transactions every day); attempting to manage those backups ourselves would be an administrative nightmare.

      All we need to do is make tapes (automated), label them (automated), and have the backup vendor (we also use Iron Mountain) pick them up a couple times a day. How is this not easy?

    74. Re:Tapes? by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      What about Amazon S3? Sorry, just kidding.

    75. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I can put a box-worth (or two) of tape data on a single external HD

      Well then your company is simply using an extremely small/old tape format. You would have the exact same problem if your company stuck with hundreds of 20GB HDDs.

      and take it to our companies safe-deposit box.

      This part about you doing labor for free is what makes the numbers work out. No doubt you could load up boxes of backup tapes in your car/truck, and drive it to the current storage facility as well, and save some money.

      the safe-deposit box is like $100/year.

      Last I checked, safe deposit boxes aren't guaranteed to maintain stable temperature, humidity, etc.

      And once you are doing this in full rotation, buying lots of hard drives, getting a larger safe deposit box, etc., the price is going to get quite steep.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    76. Re:Tapes? by tdeg · · Score: 1

      You obviously aren't at the enterprise level. I've yet to see a DVD solution that lets you do near the reliability or thoroughput of tape. Plus a DVD is only maybe 9GB where LTO3 is 800GB compressed per tape. If you are backing up say 10TB, you would need possibly thousands of DVDs as opposed to maybe 100's of tapes. Even with Blu-ray and HD-DVD the sizes are at what tape was at a decade ago. With tape you can have it attached with a 4GB fibre connection. With DVD you are limited to IDE or maybe SCSI. Neither of these comes close.

    77. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you _can_ render the data on a DVD unreadable/unaccessible because of a scratch.

      No, you _CANT_.

      For that, this "scratch" has to be a massive gash, which goes more than halfway through the depth of the plastic disc. Additionally, it has to span the entire radius of the disk just to make it "difficult" to recover a significant portion of the data.

      Their decay increases greatly at increased temperatures and, expecially, under UV from the sun.

      Your backup solution should NOT involve throwing a bunch of bare DVD-Rs on the dash board of your car.

      Any backup solution involves climate control, and light-proof packaging. Your tapes would crumble in no time, otherwise.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    78. Re:Tapes? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Hah! Stop using cheap-shit "QIC80" tapes. Almost all enterprise level tape technology will last at least 30 years. Some of the crap sold for PC/home users won't even last as long as it takes to write them; and good luck getting any other drive to read them.

      (I've pulled data from telco tape backups that were ~50 years old... those tapes were twice my age.)

    79. Re:Tapes? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      9 track? I cant think of any other tape device that was made before 1977.

    80. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Of course you know the data is stored on the label side.

      You're thinking of CDs. DVDs have the data layer sandwiched in-between two layers of plastic.

      Even the cheapest DVD-Rs I've seen don't put it on the surface, but it's entirely possible there are some out there I'm unaware of. In any case, you're aren't just going to buy the cheapest DVD-Rs at your local store for your corporate backups, any more than you would do the same for tapes.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    81. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a highly resilient system for your services and recovering from a disaster should be a non-issue.
      You seem to have an interesting concept of what a disaster is. It's certainly different to mine, which involves such things as your server room getting flooded with lava, an aircraft crashing into your building or an earthquake. All of which have happened to me, and HA would have been fuck all use.
    82. Re:Tapes? by fbartho · · Score: 1

      your scratch is too complicated. Scratch the painted side, the fail. That's the fragile part that actually contains the data. if you lightly scratch that on a radius, you've literally moved a section of bits from many to most of the files straight off the disk and into dust. Not even a massive gash is needed.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    83. Re:Tapes? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      7 tracks, 1/2 inch wide tape.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    84. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Scratch the painted side, the fail.

      Bullshit. DVDs have the reflective data layer in the the middle of 2 plastic layers. THEY ARE NOT CDs.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    85. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Dead on! Grandparent is assuming that the cost and value of a system are identical. All you need to do is show that the value of a system during downtime is greater than the cost of a good DR architecture.

    86. Re:Tapes? by segfaultcoredump · · Score: 1

      What you describe is HA w/ DR and yes, it can get very, very expensive. (and complicated to get right. Trying to prevent false-positive failovers can be a pain in the ass)

      Due to cost constraints and a few other issues, I run a 'stretched cluster' where the DR site is 3 miles up the road. Since we have dark fiber between the two sites, I can get away with things that other sites only dream about. My SAN is native FC the entire way, no FCIP or iSCSI bridges. We also have Gig-E between the two locations (soon to be 10Gig-E).

      That said, this distance would not be good enough for many companies. I work for a local county, so anthing that takes out the two sites will likely destroy the entire county anyway. To make matters even more interesting, one of the two sites is also the county jail, so it is very well protected.

      The other thing that I've had to pay attention to is the tape (yes, tape) backup system. No use in having a system that can replicate data in the blink of an eye if it is the wrong data. I like to joke that the system will commit your error to both sides of the cluster very quickly. In our case we use a standard D2D2T setup where we first dump to disk, and then destage to tape within 4 hours. We then duplicate and offsite the tapes for a month with a 3rd party firm. for us the weekly full backups come out to about 15 LTO-3's worth of data (7.1TB) It is the last thing i want to think about, but at least it is there when all else fails.

    87. Re:Tapes? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Here's a test for you. Get a DVD-R or CD-R. Burn your favorite Linux iso on it, and make sure it works.

      Now get a flathead screwdriver and scrape of some of the label, and try again.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    88. Re:Tapes? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The tapes are about $100, which is close to par with hard drives now (400 GB native), but in the not too distant future, LTO4 will be out, which doubles the capacity."

      Yeah, but when LTO4 is out you can't use them without buying a new _expensive_ LTO4 drive.

      Whereas in the not too distant future when new hard drives with double the capacity are out, you can still use them with your existing computers (as long as they still support SATA).

      Basically HDDs = media + drive, and they are about the same price as tapes on a per GB basis if not cheaper. Multiple HDDs have better bandwidth than multiple tapes with one tape drive.

      And I've heard horror stories where backup tapes can only be read by the same drive the backups were made on.

      When you factor all that in, tape isn't that great, it's still better in some areas, but it should be cheaper for all its disadvantages.

      --
    89. Re:Tapes? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Sounds like one hell of a setup. We've outgrown out LTO2 library for about a year now and just arrived at a deduplicating VTL solution (FalconStor) that will allow our LTO2 library to give us another year's worth of using by going D2D2T, also. So how did you score such a nice DR system for your office? Did you guys suffer a data disaster before they saw the need for it? Also, are you guys using Veritas, Commvault or something else for your backups?

    90. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of all our clients... ...Some places have literally TerraBytes of data to back up...


      Priceless.

    91. Re:Tapes? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I have a small one.

      http://www.quantum.com/Products/Autoloaders/SuperL oader3/Index.aspx

      Sure beats changing tapes by hand.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    92. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to explain to a manager why you need a $50K tape system to backup a $10K server.


      It's not much the server is worth, but the data on the server. The question to ask the manager is 'what would happen if that server caught fire and you lost everything on it? what would happen to your business?'.

      Try unplugging the network cable and tell people the server crashed taking all the data with it. I'm sure they'll see your point then. :)

    93. Re:Tapes? by segfaultcoredump · · Score: 1

      We scored a nice setup by taking advantage of what we have, playing the public safety card and tossing the vendors out of the building :-)

      The fiber was complements of the state's department of transportation. They were pulling fiber along the interstate and looking for money to help with their costs. Our traffic department was looking for fiber for their traffic cameras and one halway conversation led to another and the next thing we know we have 12 strands and an empty conduit (traffic got another 12). We had enough money to pay for our share of the fiber and everybody was happy. It also helps that the two buildings border the interstate, with the jail being about 300 yards away. Thus the latteral runs were not too expensive. By ourselves we would never have gotten past the right of way issues let alone the overall cost of the project.

      As for financing the rest of it, we already had a SAN (a pair of Cisco MDS 9200's) at one site, so it was easy to pop a pair of CDWM gbic's into it and stretch it 2 miles north into another pair of 9200's. Note that these are not "director class" (too expensive). We simply run dual fabrics. In the event of a total switch failure we are still up and running. Note that we are right on the edge of the distance where latency will become an issue.

      The real ace in the hole was the fact that the sheriff's department was replacing the servers that they use to run their computer aided dispatch system. For the cost of the annual maintenance on the old stratus systems we could purchase 4 new HP systems, disk arrays, and VCS licenses. Having them riding the DR infrastructure helped sell the entire thing (this _is_ 911 we are talking about). Once the SAN was in place, all we had to do was pick up one side of our cluster, drive it up north and plug it back in. Vola, HA w/ DR :-)

      For the servers we simply use Veritas Cluster server in a stretched mode. One of our heartbeats is via a wireless shot and the other via fiber. Having the high speed network allows us to get away with more murder, since we also stretch the IP subnet between the two datacenters. This allows us to avoid having to play any DNS games.

      Is it a perfect system? No. (I can tell you what happens when somebody uses a road grater to eat up 800ft of fiber along the road). I can tell you now that we have the wireless shot in place (it happened to be down during that fiber outage), we are where we need to be given the cost of downtime. That said, we still leave most things 'frozen' so that a short network blip will not cause the entire thing to bounce. We would rather suffer 30 minutes of downtime rather than have the thing bounce because a switch somewhere caused a spanning tree recalc (we are replacing all of our server network equipment this year and that issue will go byby as all of the new stuff supports rapid spanning tree)

      As for backup, we again when the 'easy' and cheap route. Netbackup 6.x (which we already had) with simple disk storage units. The actual disks are Nexsan and just mounted up as a big file system. The idea is not to hold too much data on disk, but just enough for a weeks worth (we have seen the disks keep 3 of the LTO-3's feed at 80MB/s for hours on end, something not possible with a direct to tape backup over the lan.

      Symantec/Veritas does not charge for DSU's, so that was the cheapest way to go for us. If we used a VTL product, we would have to license it as if it was a tape drive. Overall, we could get away with a 4 drive license. (the old system used 10 AIT-3's) Of course, those disks are mirrored between the two sites, netbackup is installed on the Solaris VCS cluster (which also runs oracle and a dozen other services) and we have a small take drive at one site in case the main site has issues. (We recently picked up an LTO-3 based ADIC i2000 for a song by getting it during their end of year. It also helps that they are made in the next county over, so shipping and installation fee's were waved)

      The final trick was to en

    94. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that throughput of (modern) tape will be exceptionally faster than burning to DVD. Native-uncompressed LTO3 throughput is rated at 80MB/s

    95. Re:Tapes? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I will not call back a tape from two weeks ago because you made a mistake and saved over your Excel spreadsheet the wrong way, or because you managed to delete something because you're sloppy with a mouse.

      Yes you will, or should, when the user's manager gets involved. If you would like to think that because a user trashes a month's accounts, that you can wave some magic hand and say "Yes, I know that data is in pristine condition on last week's backup, but no, you're not getting it just because Waldo over there is as dumb as dogshit to have trashed it in the first place", you either work in some kind of hell hole out of Dilbert (think "I am Mordac, the Preventer of Information Services"), or have been interpreting your job description far too literally. (We wonder why so many people have so much distate for certain IT people.) However,

      Should the user's department be charged the cost that your DR service bills for the retrieval of said tape? Absolutely.

      Should this retrieval work be prioritized accordingly within your task list? Absolutely.

    96. Re:Tapes? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Sure.

      Question, though, I'm not sure specifics, but I'm all curious now. Encrypting your company's confidential data to a secure standard (say high bit number AES). For say a terabyte of data. Granted "fast" is subjective, but when the OP talks of backing up his data fast, the encryption of a terabyte of data isn't the first thing that springs to mind.

    97. Re:Tapes? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      their decay increases greatly at increased temperatures and, expecially, under UV from the sun.

      Whilst it doesn't invalidate your point, most offsite DR / storage facilities don't list "tropical climate, and plenty of sunlight" as prime features of their tape (or DVD) warehouse...

    98. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up you precious twat. FluffyBunniesAndPonies.com is over that way ----->

    99. Re:Tapes? by RandyOo · · Score: 1

      You've heard of parity files, right? The same technology, Reed-Solomon encoding, is used on DVDs for recovery of scratches. A radial scratch may remove bits from many files (into dust, even), but it will be seamlessly, automatically recovered by any decent drive, if it was burned properly to begin with.

      The problem is that many DVDs barely work when they've just been burned, because it's counting on that error correction just to read the files without any physical media errors... just burning errors by poor hardware/firmware.

    100. Re:Tapes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you tell me a better, cheaper way to get the data offsite?


      Have Google mirror your shit?
    101. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      CD != DVD. The two are very different. You've clearly never tried the scenario you've described, or you'd know how completely wrong you are.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    102. Re:Tapes? by StringBlade · · Score: 1

      BOFH is that you?

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    103. Re:Tapes? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Basically HDDs = media + drive, and they are about the same price as tapes on a per GB basis if not cheaper. Multiple HDDs have better bandwidth than multiple tapes with one tape drive.

      Go read the specs for a single LTO-3 U160 SCSI tape drive. It can generally sustain a transfer rate at (or close to) the speed of the bus itself - 160MB/sec.

      That's SUSTAIN. Not burst. No hard disk on Earth can do that right now. (Actually, relatively few computers can because you wind up with bus contention issues).

    104. Re:Tapes? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The scratch can be circular, or at least somewhat circular, and that causes unrecoverable errors. And depending on where such circular scratch happens, you can lose access to all the data on the DVD. Which is something I experienced already, so don't tell me it's impossible, when in fact I have empirical evidence to the contrary.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    105. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      you can lose access to all the data on the DVD. Which is something I experienced already, so don't tell me it's impossible,

      You are a single random idiot, who has no idea what he is doing. That is nothing like the scenario we are talking about. I explicitly explained that surface scratches can be repaired. You, no doubt, did not attempt to repair anything, or at least had no skill, tools, or knowledge to use.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    106. Re:Tapes? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Untrue - I've had quite a few DVDs with problems. I also have files bigger than 4GB. I also have had situations where I have to go onto the second SDLT320 tape - at 160GB raw that is a pile of DVDs. We are talking about more than home computers here.

      Any backup solution involves climate control, and light-proof packaging
      It's called cartridges - or opaque cases for anything old enough to be on a reel.
    107. Re:Tapes? by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1

      Well in that case, the data is worth $38b and the convenience of having electronic copies is worth $200k. If the paper copies had been completely lost you can bet the liability would have been more than $200k

    108. Re:Tapes? by kabz · · Score: 1

      One of the nice things about OS X is you can just mirror an entire 100 Gigs to an external in about an hour or so, then stash it somewhere safe.
      This can then be used to boot any same CPU machine, at least my Intel boxes iMac and Mini run off the same image. The iMac crashed one time, probably due to be named the same as the other machine, then was fine after that.
      It is really really nice to know that in the case of a messed up drive, you can restore and be up and running.
      Where most people mess up though, is in not practicing this regularly. My Powerbook gets reimaged off it's own backups about every month, just to keep it defragged. I have had to do this for real once, when something got corrupted after using the computer on a very bumpy airplane ride.
      I just got through reimaging my iMac from its backup, and it's running great.

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    109. Re:Tapes? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was a case of data accounting for $38 billion dollars and where it came from and where it was going. Doesn't mean the $38billion dollars dissapears with the data, just that reaccounting for it would be tricky and other issues.

    110. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Why do my comments always bring out all the idiots, who don't bother to read (or understand) my previous comments in the same thread?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    111. Re:Tapes? by fbartho · · Score: 1

      wow! goes to show you learn something new everyday. Does that then explain how you can have double sided dvd's without changing the disc's thickness?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    112. Re:Tapes? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why do my comments always bring out all the idiots

      I think it's because the comment was stupid, uninformed and disproved by personal experience as well as a lot of other places. It does not take a huge scratch, small flaws create problems too.

    113. Re:Tapes? by Feedbag · · Score: 1

      I used to be the lead backup guy at a pretty huge corporation, where I had several StorageTek libraries in operation. Amazing machines really, archived huge amounts of data and the barcodes/software made what should have been complicated an absolute breeze.

      VIPs always wanted to give tours of the data centre (it was a pretty impressive place), and 95% of the time it was the same... in a room with untold computing power, millions upon millions of dollars worth of hardware... what really impressed people was the robotics inside the StorageTeks extracting tapes. Sure, it looks cool... but it's not our product people! If you're going to invest in a company, don't be impressed by someone else's slick work!

      Whatever gets the money, I guess...

    114. Re:Tapes? by aybiss · · Score: 1

      Many people are opting for removable USB hard-drives these days, since they can hold over half a terabyte, more than most small to medium size organisations would create in a century. Hard drives have an *awesome* shelf life compared to any other media, and are easy to move around when in a caddy. If you go for 2.5" drives, you can drop it in your pocket on Friday afternoon before you lock the door.

      For a small office that doesn't create gigs of graphic designs every day or something, I'd recommend USB drives over tapes any day - cheaper, faster, more reliable.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    115. Re:Tapes? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      You had it easy. We had all that on the same day, and then we got nuked from orbit, just to be sure. But we were happy.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    116. Re:Tapes? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure the _newer_ LTO3 drives do 80MB/sec native - not compressed. 160MB/sec compressed.

      But one LTO3 drive is about the same price as about 15 x 400GB SATA HDDs, and a single 7200 rpm SATA HDD already does sustained 40-60MB/sec native.

      So with HDDs you can backup/restore 15 servers at the same time for the same price as one LTO3 drive. Whereas if you have 15 servers and one LTO3 drive you can only backup two servers in the same amount of time.

      And you still need to spend more to buy extra tapes for the LTO3 drive (I doubt you get 15 free LTO3 tapes with your USD1500 LTO3 drive).

      If you store your HDDs carefully they should last for quite a while.

      --
    117. Re:Tapes? by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      First, get a server. You can just go buy one in a disaster, but many companies have 'some arrangement'. This might be an agreement to supply, or it might be a complete replicated environment. There's a tradeoff of price vs. speed, but ... the essence is the same - you have a deal, which means you get new kit in a disaster.

      Second, you're doing a bare metal recovery. First one to get up and running, is of course, you backup server. Typically, this is done by - building the OS. Loading the backup software. Importing the tapes. Most backup software has a 'disaster recovery file' which is pretty short, but ... well basically points you at the location of the 'last good index'. So you get that file. Your DR plan should include some way to get it back. Usually that's done by emailing it to a separate environment, but ... well printing out a hardcopy and sending them 'away' with your tapes is also on the list.

      Got your database, import it into your backup server, then you get to start your recoveries

      If you're not doing anything more clever, then you're probably looking at build OS, install backup software, then recover the information from the backup e.g. system state, contents of databases and installed applications.

      This is all quite intensive, and virtually guaranteed to not work seamlessly. Which is why companys run DR sites.

    118. Re:Tapes? by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Find a mail account that bounces (fails) your mails when your inbox is full. Ideally 2. Then: dd /dev/sda | split -b 1048576 | mail you@account1,you@account2 Add in a bit of procmail to 'forward' any incoming mails too. Send off your disk dd twice for resilience, and rely on the latency of rather a lot of 1Mb emails as your storage. I know quite a few few mail systems that are sufficiently slow, that you'll get a day of latency before your mails start to return, especially if you do something horrific like mailbomb a slow link :)

    119. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I think it's because the comment was stupid, uninformed and disproved by personal experience

      Yeah. Except of course for the fact that I'm 100% correct, more knowledgeable about the issue than practically anyone, and your "personal experience" is an utterly different subject than the topic at-hand.

      If you had spent 10 seconds looking at other comments in the thread, before spouting-off like the dozen of other idiots before you, you'd see why you're so completely wrong, on every level.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    120. Re:Tapes? by illtud · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Except of course for the fact that I'm 100% correct, more knowledgeable about the issue than practically anyone, and your "personal experience" is an utterly different subject than the topic at-hand.

      If you had spent 10 seconds looking at other comments in the thread, before spouting-off like the dozen of other idiots before you, you'd see why you're so completely wrong, on every level.


      Why can I only read your post with Comic Book Guy's voice in my head?

    121. Re:Tapes? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Except of course for the fact that I'm 100% correct, more knowledgeable about the issue than practically anyone

      Cool, do you have a URL to any of the papers you have published on the subject? There are couple of dozen DVDs I can't read that I can try things out on. If it requires a scaning electron microscope and a conductive coating I can organise that.

    122. Re:Tapes? by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Point one: "This part about you doing labor for free is what makes the numbers work out."
      The nearest bank is 8 minutes away. And I (and most enterprise-level IT folks) am salaried. So it would not be free, and it certainly would not be labor. Some IT types have a vested interest in making things function as slowly as possible to justify their bloated departments.

      Point two: "Last I checked, safe deposit boxes aren't guaranteed to maintain stable temperature, humidity, etc."
      I would say check again. Most (if not all) bank doing business in the US are federally mandated to do exactly that.

      Point three: "And once you are doing this in full rotation, buying lots of hard drives, getting a larger safe deposit box, etc., the price is going to get quite steep."
      I've been doing it in full rotation for over 8 years. And the time saved during the last server/database restore (less than 8 man hours) more than pays for the cost.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    123. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      There are couple of dozen DVDs I can't read that I can try things out on. If it requires a scaning electron microscope and a conductive coating I can organise that.

      If the reflective layer hasn't been damaged, you'd do better to try a simple scratch repair kit first (anything that comes with a simple vacuum tool). If that doesn't work, buffing the disc should.

      If you didn't have to remove a significant amount (depth) of material to eliminate the scratch, you may then be able to just throw that in a drive. If it is significant, you'll either need to take it to a manufacturer of DVDs, and have them re-coat it to normal thickness, or it is possible to hook the laser pickup in a DVD-ROM to an oscilloscope, and recalibrate it for thinner (or thicker) discs.

      An electron microscope is really never going to be useful for reading DVD-R/RW/RAM.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    124. Re:Tapes? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Please answer the question - if you are the world's expert as implied above please link to your publications.

      If you are not please stop saying silly things like you are. Personally I suspect you have not yet completed school and are just parroting things you have heard and not entirely understood to disrupt things for fun and make it look like you know more thasn the grown ups (even though we really aren't all that grown up here).

    125. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I have no interest in humoring you. Troll away.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    126. Re:Tapes? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Recall that you are the one that called me an idiot and then wrote about how wonderful you are - hence the replies. You can't expect to do that sort of thing without people asking you to justify it, especially when you say something that I and many others know from bitter experience is untrue.

    127. Re:Tapes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Recall that you are the one that called me an idiot [...] you say something that I and many others know from bitter experience is untrue.

      Yet you continue to be an idiot, and argue the same moot points over and over. Meanwhile, you could have quickly read other comments in the thread, understood the context, realized what I was actually saying, far more quickly than repeatedly trolling, and learning nothing.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  3. Sounds more like a $200,000 file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But maybe that's just me, someone who opted not to work in government after studying political science.

  4. Redo the work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For that kind of money, I'd probably just send the HD to data recovery specialists.

    1. Re:Redo the work? by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For that kind of money, I'd probably just send the HD to data recovery specialists.

      Well, this is the government. They probably didn't have a budget for data recovery, but they did have a budget for scanning documents...the actual dollar amounts of each probably matter very little ;-)

    2. Re:Redo the work? by bilbobob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HD Recovery specialists? They could have could have bought something like GetBackData for NTFS and saved themselves $199921 in recovery costs. As far as I'm aware, reformatting your HD is one of the least successful methods of permanently destroying your data (even if you mean too).

    3. Re:Redo the work? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that is appropriate? I would have brought the recovery team here instead of sending it away. You know how important packages get lost in the mail. It would suck to lose this and have it be your last change at getting something out of it.

      I sent a drive away in the past to find 3 pictures and it cost somewhere around $2500 for then entire drive (they wouldn't do just the three pictures). The pictures were worth 40% of 2 mill to my customer. Quite a bit less then 38 billion but I still had a currier deliver it to the front door and hand it to a live person.

      It was worth every penny. So unless they are using some odd format that the drive specialist cannot work with, It should should have been there before this article was thought of.

    4. Re:Redo the work? by oni · · Score: 1

      The pictures were worth 40% of 2 mill to my customer.

      ok, you've *got* to spill the beans on this one. Who was the customer, the National Enquirer?

    5. Re:Redo the work? by iago-vL · · Score: 1
      According to the Yahoo article, they tried:

      Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc. labored to retrieve the data, it became obvious the worst-case scenario was at hand.
      Guess they have a hell of a format program!
    6. Re:Redo the work? by simm1701 · · Score: 1

      No no no no no!!!

      You have it so wrong, someone working there could have mentioned the snafu casually to his IT knowing friend, who then would approach the goverment office with a portable desktop machine, the right software and offered his consultancy services at 2000 or so a day to recover the data with a garuntee of returning atleast 90% or no fee would be charged.

      A goverment office (or a business) would never believe that a cheap piece of software would solve their problem so you have to package it in a way they will understand and accept... not to mention making 20k or so out of it (it obviously isn't going to be a 1 day job, is it????)

      --
      $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    7. Re:Redo the work? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I know this is /. but if you'd read the article you would find they tried that. No Joy.

    8. Re:Redo the work? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 3, Funny

      No kidding...if "Mary" from Dell "canna fiss eet, you drag to reee-cyc bin yesss? reboot? all gone, have nice day now" then who are we mortals to argue?

    9. Re:Redo the work? by antonrojo · · Score: 1

      That could be the cause, or it might be the incentive systems in more dysfunctional governmental divisions.

      If someone in government IT proposes an extensive backup system, better security, etc., they become responsible for the effort, and if anything goes wrong they can be blamed, even if the overall solution is a vast improvement over none at all. On the other hand, if no one steps up, the worst thing that could happen is some extra overtime and possibly the firing of a low-level scapegoat with little job security--despite high profile cases such as FEMA and Alberto Gonzales, publicity and accountability for government administrative errors is rare.

    10. Re:Redo the work? by omeomi · · Score: 1

      despite high profile cases such as FEMA and Alberto Gonzales, publicity and accountability for government administrative errors is rare.

      Oh, they're still scapegoats. Same with Scooter Libby. They just happen to be scapegoats for people with a whole lot of power...

    11. Re:Redo the work? by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Software works to a point. Pro data recovery firms are a little more expensive, but absolutely terrifying in terms of what they can recover data from.

      There's a reason that classified stuff on disks, there's all manner of hoops to jump through before the disk can even be removed from the 'secure' areas.

    12. Re:Redo the work? by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the CNN article, they spent about $75,000 on data recovery specialists (who could not recover the data), then spent another $125,000 rescanning all the documents from paper.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    13. Re:Redo the work? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, don't send them to fields data recovery. Thats possibly the worst company Ive ever delt with. 3 months and they still havent returned the drives that were supposed to take 48 hours to process. Also their "free return" we had to pay $45 for. And on top of it all, they didnt actually recover any data!

      fucking wankers. I think ill call and yell at them again.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    14. Re:Redo the work? by be951 · · Score: 1
      Tried what? To recover the data from the HD, the backup HD, or the tapes? I'm not saying no one thought of trying different recovery methods on the disks, but that line from the article doesn't actually say they did anything with the disks. It's possible they spent a lot of time working on the backup tapes since that was their first recovery option when they realized the HDs had been formatted.

      Or it could be that trying to recover from tape put enough scrambled data on the HD to put it beyond the more economical/basic data recovery methods.

    15. Re:Redo the work? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought that opening the thing up and burning the plates (with acid, for instance) would pretty much get the job done.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    16. Re:Redo the work? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nah, Nothing like that. It isn't really exciting either. I cannot really give any names or anything. But I can generically describe what happened.

      A law firm handed me a computer that wouldn't boot. On it was some pictures taken concerning a wrongful death case. It turns out that the pictures were a hindsight and in the middle of fixing it, The task turned from getting the computer to run to getting the pictures from the drive. The drive was failing and was larger then the 137gig 28bit LBA limits. But we didn't know this because it was never booted and XP pre SP1 did not enable 48bit addressing by default. And even after SP1, if you didn't update your ATAPI driver to x.1135 or later, it wouldn't be enabled by default even if you have the ability. So connecting it to another computer made it worse. Eventually the fault in the drive which was a crashed head, made it impossible for us to recover past the boot sector running traditional recovery software. The data recovery specialist were able to get around everything we added to the problem as well as the problem itself and retrieved better then 98% of everything on the drive. I think one file was bad but we weren't concerned with it at all.

      Long story short, the pictures showed someone's negligence in a wrongful death case and once they were presented or added to the evidence pile, the defendant's insurance company settled for 2 mill. The lawsuit was for more then that so you could probably guess what it could have been worth. The firms cut was in the area of 40% from what I understand. So it was worth 40% of 2 mill to them. $2500 seems like a little amount in comparison.

    17. Re:Redo the work? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You know how important packages get lost in the mail.

      Something important you wouldn't just drop in the post, you'd either hire a courier firm or take it round in person.

      I tend to agree though, that in this case I'd either request them to work on site or, if that's not possible for some reason, hand the disk (or even the whole machine) over in person.

    18. Re:Redo the work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I'm aware, reformatting your HD is one of the least successful methods of permanently destroying your data (even if you mean too).
      Unless the guy actually was thorough and used Darik's Boot & Nuke.
    19. Re:Redo the work? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Yeah that would do it :)

      ----
      ESS Data Recovery

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    20. Re:Redo the work? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      That's cool, thanks for the info. Can I ask which data recovery specialist you used?

      Forensics is definitely an interesting market for data recovery companies. We see all sorts of interesting stuff, some quite bad.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    21. Re:Redo the work? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Yeah no kidding. Formatting is one of the easier recovery scenarios. Well I don't know how many knowledgeable data recovery people MS and Dell have though so that's not surprising.

      We would have done it for less than $71,800 :)

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    22. Re:Redo the work? by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      MS and Dell? The aren't into data recovery that I know. If they were then they could have definitely got stuff off of those formatted hard drives, come on.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  5. The Senator by jeevesbond · · Score: 3, Funny

    Senator Ted Stevens remarked that they should have sent it in an Internet, apparently tubes are much more reliable than tape.

    --
    I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    1. Re:The Senator by Donniedarkness · · Score: 2, Funny

      They DID send it in an internet, but we were clogging up the tubes with "youtubes" and "myspaces" that it didn't reach them until AFTER they finished copying it!

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  6. And this is why... by bobetov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...print will never be dead.

    --
    Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    1. Re:And this is why... by imboboage0 · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Hard Drive may burn just as much as paper does. :P

    3. Re:And this is why... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny

      And this is why... ...print will never be dead.

      Right, because:

      Nobody has ever thrown away papers that were actually needed...

      Paper is an inexpensive and compact way to store terabytes of information...

      Paper is trivially easy to instantly duplicate on a large scale...

      Paper is trivially easy to haul off-site and store...

      People constantly generate diffs between the most recently archived paper copy, and all work they have done every day since. They don't just make undocumented changes, willy-nilly, requiring just as much effort to backup daily changes as it is to backup full copies of everything...

      No question, paper is superior. The data retention problems we always hear about are in every way caused by digital storage methods, and have nothing to do with the policies and people running the organizations...

      (No I will not pay for any damaged caused by this post overloading your sarcasm meter.)
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:And this is why... by krasmussen · · Score: 0

      In what way would having a printed copy be different from having (in this case) a third, digital copy? The paper copy might just as well end up in a fire, as this third copy would fail/burn/etc..

    5. Re:And this is why... by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

      And huge n' heavy tablets of stone..

    6. Re:And this is why... by bobetov · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing that digital data storage is dead, simply that paper copies have their place.

      - No way to lose the software/format that the file is stored in
      - Easy to verify the data is retained - can you look at a DVD/tape and tell instantly if you can read the data?
      - Shelf life of centuries

      The biggest reason, though, is the one highlighted by this story. It takes effort to destroy paper copies of things. You have to really work at it. With digital, it's just a few keypresses/drops of water/cosmic rays away from the bit bucket at any point, and you may not even know it until you go to get the data. Oops!

      I'm not saying that policies and training and whatnot can't make digital nearly perfect, simply that plain old hardcopy has its place in that policy.

      Think about voting paper trails, for example.

      --
      Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    7. Re:And this is why... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Well then we should all be etching our important documents into sheets of gold-plated titanium, since it's significantly more durable than paper, right?

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    8. Re:And this is why... by Dretep · · Score: 0

      Stone tablets are the only way to go. The big man had the write idea putting the 10 commandments on them.

    9. Re:And this is why... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      - No way to lose the software/format that the file is stored in

      Very little benefit to that. It's much more hassle to access/use the data in the short-term. In the long-term, it's pretty hard to imagine something like RTF/HTML ever becoming unreadable.

      - Easy to verify the data is retained - can you look at a DVD/tape and tell instantly if you can read the data?

      I can verify digital data is 100% readable in the tiniest fraction of the time it would take you to ensure thousands of pages of paper are even slightly readable, never mind checking every letter...

      - Shelf life of centuries

      You may be thinking of parchment, but certainly not paper. Your laser printer paper isn't going to make it for decades, let alone centuries.

      It takes effort to destroy paper copies of things. You have to really work at it.

      No you don't. SOMEONE needs to put effort into it, just like the computer is putting effort into deleting all your files.

      There have been an inconceivable number of times that two boxes of papers got mixed-up, and the important one got shredded. Sure the janitor put lots of "work" and "effort" into it, but for management, it was a mere typo on an order, mix-up of two label, cards, etc.

      The problem isn't digital.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Stone tablets are the only way to go. The big man had the write idea putting the 10 commandments on them.

      Bad example: those were lost long ago (or were only mythical).

      The rosetta stone is a much better example, as are some famous
      mountain side carvings.

    11. Re:And this is why... by freakmn · · Score: 1

      Stone tablets are the only way to go. The big man had the write idea putting the 10 commandments on them. I'd say that their longevity is mainly because of many, many offsite backups. Unless you know where the originals are?
      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    12. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's pretty hard to imagine something like RTF/HTML ever becoming unreadable.

      Apparently you are in major need of a major imagination upgrade, bill -- we really did go past that huge 64k limit...

    13. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are in major need of a major imagination upgrade

      Do you hear that? That's the sound of an ignorant fool, with no idea what he is talking about.
    14. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do Diffs on paper copies quite easily.

      1. Get original print-out of file.
      2. Change file.
      3. Print out new file.
      4. Put new printout exactly on top of old, and hold up against window.

      The differences are quite easy to see.

  7. $38 billion? by pipatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did they figure these files were worth $38 billion when it only cost $200000 to create them from scratch?

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    1. Re:$38 billion? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Informative

      right - the account is worth 38 billion - the file was apparently worth about 200 grand in labor. of course it didn't cost that much to make the first time, as it was done over a longer period without all the o.t.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:$38 billion? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The method for arriving at that figure was also tragically lost. A team of monkeys recreated the figure in 3 minutes with a number pad at a cost of $45.

      --
      stuff |
    3. Re:$38 billion? by __aapbzv4610 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The value is based on what the data represents, not the material labor in re-scanning them. loose example, I could spen $30 on painting supplies and create a $100,000 masterpiece (well not by me, but, anyway...)

    4. Re:$38 billion? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Because that is the sum of all the financial transactions that were legally documented. Suppose every pae of those 800,000 pages is a single tax return worth on average $5000 to the state. Then you get a rather large number: 800,000 pages * $5000 = $40,000,000,000

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:$38 billion? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Presumably you could not recreate that same identical masterpiece if the original were destroyed. In this case they could.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:$38 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the headline, "State of Alaska Makes $200,000 Mistake" is going to draw a lot of readers?

    7. Re:$38 billion? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Actually, the value of those files is what somebody else would pay for it.

      I can spend $200,000 on labor producing a large pile of shit (for that kind of money, it'd be very large), but it wouldn't be worth shit (well, actually, that'd be exactly what it's worth, but you get the point).

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re:$38 billion? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      How did they figure these files were worth $38 billion when it only cost $200000 to create them from scratch?

      Yeah, it's far too hard to read the HEADLINE and/or the SECOND SENTENCE of the article, which both explain EXACTLY where the figure comes from...

      I'm sure it was much faster to post a comment to /. and check every few hours until someone to posts an answer.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:$38 billion? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as has been pointed out numerous times, the file itself is not worth $38 billion as was stated. If I write a check for $100 and it gets destroyed, I can just write you another check. That means the check itself isn't worth $100. It's only worth how much it costs to get that check printed and reissued.

    10. Re:$38 billion? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

      File it right next to the $18 billion (or whatever this week'd ass-originated number is) in "losses" that the RIAA/MPAA attribute to piracy.

      Oh, and the $60 billion lost to "web video piracy" as per
      http://www.havocscope.com/Counterfeit/webvideos.ht m

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    11. Re:$38 billion? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's some sort of distinction between artistic works and financial documents? I'm going to have to think about that very hard...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:$38 billion? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      the value of those files is what somebody else would pay for it.
      That's the market value. A file containing all today's credit card transactions at $some_big_shop might have zero value to anyone else (I doubt $other_shop can get paid for someone else's sales), but will be worth the value of those transactions to the original store, i.e. the money it wouldn't get if it loses the file.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    13. Re:$38 billion? by sckeener · · Score: 1

      Once during an IP audit, I asked a manager what databases he considered sensitive and critical. He said none because we have it all in paper format.

      I always remembered that and now whenever I look at a database, I think about the security of the paper documents. If they are not critical or sensitive, I'm not worried.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    14. Re:$38 billion? by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      How did they figure these files were worth $38 billion when it only cost $200000 to create them from scratch?
      Yeah, it's far too hard to read the HEADLINE and/or the SECOND SENTENCE of the article, which both explain EXACTLY where the figure comes from... I'm sure it was much faster to post a comment to /. and check every few hours until someone to posts an answer.
      You're new here, aren't you?
    15. Re:$38 billion? by wturky · · Score: 1

      It depends on who you consider "they" to be.

      The slashdot article says:

      "Now imagine the information that is lost was worth $38 billion."

      The article it links to says:

      "Now imagine wiping out a disk drive containing information for an account worth $38 billion (29 billion)."

      Notice the difference. The article only claims the ACCOUNT was worth $38 billion. NOT the information. The slashdot poster is the one who translated it to mean the information was worth that much - NOT the AP article and not the state of Alaska.

    16. Re:$38 billion? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's some sort of distinction between artistic works and financial documents? I'm going to have to think about that very hard...

      For a surprisingly low fee of only $200/hr -- no, for you, $150 -- I will be happy to think about that for you.

    17. Re:$38 billion? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Haliburton was granted the no-bid contract to recover the data.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    18. Re:$38 billion? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Don't lose a check that was written grudgingly. It might not be possible to persuade the writer to do it again.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    19. Re:$38 billion? by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Welcome to slashdot summaries.

    20. Re:$38 billion? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      that's an interesting take on it. i work with hr and financials data - so i know it is pretty critical and sensitive. i don't know about what kind of paper records exist, but i think many of the transactions that take place between us and the people we work for are purely electronic.
       
      i think the biggest lesson here is that it really pays to test your backups. i've seen this happen over and over again -- where the first time someone is trying to recover - is when there has been a loss. even if the media and the backups are good, the people doing the recovery have zero experience with doing an actual recovery. makes no sense. if you practice on a regular basis - you verify that your backups are good, and your staff get good training. that's invaluable. but i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir here.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    21. Re:$38 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if their banker is listening, let nothing STOP them from PAYMENT of that cheque.

    22. Re:$38 billion? by ear1grey · · Score: 1

      Moore's law?

    23. Re:$38 billion? by __aapbzv4610 · · Score: 1

      Presumably you could not recreate that same identical masterpiece if the original were destroyed. In this case they could. Yeah, for lack of time of coming up with a better analogy, I went with the painting. It's not so much the artistic value of the painting that I was trying to get across, but rather the presentation of the materials. They had $200,000 worth of data that when compiled represented $38 billion in information it referred to.
    24. Re:$38 billion? by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Monkeys work that cheap? Where can I hire a team?

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
  8. A thought that crosses my mind... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you're going to back up a file (actually a set of files) that is worth that much, wouldn't it be smart to go a bit further than keeping a backup copy on magnetic media?! Maybe in more than one place too?!

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:A thought that crosses my mind... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Hard drives and backup tapes are both magnetic, and they technically did keep a backup on a format that wasn't magnetic: the original hard copies.

      Note from the article (and the summary) the IT guy formatted both the original and the backup hard drives. Then there was the bad tape. So that's 2 sources. What surprises me is it wasn't on another tape somewhere.

    2. Re:A thought that crosses my mind... by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a good point. It's been discussed earlier that DVDs aren't that great for long-term storage, but it might be a good idea for agencies to backup to both, so that electromagnetic fuckups can't wipe [i]everything[/i]. And with newer, higher-density optical discs coming into play (ProDATA, Blu-Ray, HDDVD, HVD, PCD, etc), it looks more attractive than ever.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
  9. I'll do it! by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the information is still available in 300 boxes and it would cost about $200,000 to scan and recreate the $38 billion file again?
    I'll do it for $1 billion.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:I'll do it! by Misch · · Score: 1

      Halliburton? Didn't we tell you to get off slashdot?

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  10. maxtor? by ElephanTS · · Score: 4, Funny

    As their IT consultant I stand by my use of Maxtor drives.

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    1. Re:maxtor? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      As your assistant, I told you more than once, the ideal drive for this application was the IBM Deathstar 75GXPs.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    2. Re:maxtor? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you rather have a RAID of Quantum Fireballs? Now there's a drive that lived up to its name!

      FYI, the caption in that link is incorrect. That wasn't a "power surge", that was under-specced silicon finally blowing out under stress.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:maxtor? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      I've still got an old 19 Gig Quantum Fireball running linux on it... One of the old bigfoots (5.25"!). I guess some of them were tragically flawed, and others just won't die. Granted, the drive seems to take 2 minutes to get up to speed, and 1 minute to shutdown, but that's what 5.25" platters will getcha!

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    4. Re:maxtor? by Megane · · Score: 1

      It's the 6-15GB (I think) 3 1/2" IDE models that have the "Mission Impossible" chip in them. You know what I mean: "This drive will self-destruct in 10 months."

      While the bigfoot drives may be butt-ugly, I haven't ever heard anything bad about their reliability.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  11. Actual Cost?? by brunes69 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Using the 300 cardboard boxes containing all the information, staff worked overtime for several months to rescan everything at an additional cost of $200,000."

    Err.... if it only cost $200,000 to replace the data, where the hell does the $38 Billion figure come from?

    1. Re:Actual Cost?? by phasm42 · · Score: 0

      Dumbfuck article summary (did anyone bother to proof it even once??)

      The fund represented in the lost files was worth $38 billion. It'd be like if I had a QuickBooks file on my $38 billion account, and I erase the file.

      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    2. Re:Actual Cost?? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's say it's all of Alaska's tax income data for the 2006 year. Of course it's not impossible to recreate the data, but since it's basically electronic money, you could consider it "lost" if only temporarily.

    3. Re:Actual Cost?? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Err.... if it only cost $200,000 to replace the data, where the hell does the $38 Billion figure come from?

      The site is slashdotted, so I can't read TFA, but my guess would be the information isn't actually "worth" $38B. It just represents an accounted amount of $38B.

      The actual value of the data is what it would cost to replace it (or perhaps do without it) -- in this case, $200,000. Consider an analogy (20th-century, but illustrative): if you were to send a paper bank-check for $10,000 via a courier, the declared value for insurance would not be $10,000. It would be the cost of recovering from the loss of the check, which would be the stop-payment fee plus the cost of sending a new one.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Actual Cost?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the desire to create an attention-getting headline. Or colossal stupidity. Take your pick.

    5. Re:Actual Cost?? by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 4, Funny

      1) Write "200 000 000 000 USD" on the paper.
      2) Type what's on the paper into a .txt file
      3) Save the file
      4) Delete the file
      5) Empty the recycle bin
      6) Recreate file by retyping data from the paper
      7) Post the story on the /. how big financial disaster you've made, and how you've saved your ass

      --
      No sig today.
    6. Re:Actual Cost?? by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Once, I wrote "$500 trillion" on a notepad file, and then accidentally deleted it. Boy was my face red.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    7. Re:Actual Cost?? by zxsqkty · · Score: 1

      8) ...???
      9) Profit!

      --
      Caution: May contain nuts.
  12. Where did the numbers come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The information was worth $38 billion, but they rescanned it at a cost of only $200K?

    Sounds like RIAA accounting to me.

  13. Data recovery? by Upphew · · Score: 0

    Wtf?!? They call to ms and dell, but not to people who actually recover data? My first call would been to http://www.ibas.com/

    ps. I don't work at ibas

    1. Re:Data recovery? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if the formatted drives were used for other purposes before they realized their mistake. I don't think the data recovery firms can restore info that has been overwritten, can they?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:Data recovery? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just assuming the harddisks were secure erased, considering that is what pretty much every govenment in the world does when formatting harddisks.

      Simply put, secure erasing is a process whereby (semi-)random data is written to the harddisk, overwriting previous data, and doing it enough times to ensure no residual traces of data exists.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Data recovery? by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

      Hey. From the article, consultants from Microsoft and Dell were called in. As they said in Raiders of the Lost Ark, top...men.

    4. Re:Data recovery? by Neeth · · Score: 1

      With hard drives, data doesn't just go away. Sure, it may not be recoverable with simple "undelete" software, but data recovery experts will charge far less than $200,000 to pull important files off of a wiped hard drive.

      No no no! You don't understand. It says clearly that consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc. labored to retrieve the data. Who needs data recovery experts after that? Sure, data recovery expert can retrieve data from disks that have been submerged in acid for three weeks, but hey, this is a Microsoft consultant!

      --
      Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
    5. Re:Data recovery? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      After they formated the drive they did a clean install of the OS over it. That makes it a tad more difficult to recover the data.

    6. Re:Data recovery? by NocturnalWarrior · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I work at a data recovery firm. With modern drives, Once bits have been overwritten there is no commercially viable method for determining the previous values.

      --
      "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
    7. Re:Data recovery? by jagdish · · Score: 1
      Peter Gutmann doesnt think so.

      Data overwritten once or twice may be recovered by subtracting what is expected to be read from a storage location from what is actually read. Data which is overwritten an arbitrarily large number of times can still be recovered provided that the new data isn't written to the same location as the original data. For this reason it is effectively impossible to sanitise storage locations by simple overwriting them, no matter how many overwrite passes are made or what data patterns are written. However by using the relatively simple methods presented in this paper the task of an attacker can be made significantly more difficult, if not prohibitively expensive.
    8. Re:Data recovery? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      I'm just assuming the harddisks were secure erased, considering that is what pretty much every govenment in the world does when formatting harddisks.

      Of course. You don't take any chances when you are defrauding a $38 billion account. I'd be watching the departments personal bank records if I were the police.

    9. Re:Data recovery? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      My first call would been to http://www.ibas.com/

      Indeed, very odd. During a visit (with my class) at Ibas, they said they would have little to no problem recovering almost all of the data even after several reformat/rewrite cycles. And while Ibas ain't cheap, I'm pretty sure Ibas would be an order of magnitude or two cheaper than rescanning all the documents, not to mention faster.

    10. Re:Data recovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Data overwritten once or twice may be recovered by subtracting what is expected to be read from a storage location from what is actually read.

      If you already knew what to expect, why would you bother doing the read in the first place?

      > Data which is overwritten an arbitrarily large number of times can still be recovered provided that the new data isn't written to the same location as the original data.

      Duh?

      > For this reason it is effectively impossible to sanitise storage locations by simple overwriting them, no matter how many overwrite passes are made or what data patterns are written.

      Excellent, that means that disk drives represent an infinitely large storage medium.

      Yes, I'm being factious, but the quote you picked isn't a very good one.

    11. Re:Data recovery? by noz · · Score: 1

      With hard drives, data doesn't just go away. Sure, it may not be recoverable with simple "undelete" software, but data recovery experts will charge far less than $200,000 to pull important files off of a wiped hard drive.

      I'm just assuming the harddisks were secure erased, considering that is what pretty much every govenment in the world does when formatting harddisks.
      Or $38bn was the potential fine for whatever illegal data they were holding and they couldn't go to a recovery specialist. ;-)
  14. I don't get it. by byteherder · · Score: 1

    "Imagine you're reformatting a hard drive so you can do a clean install but then realize that you have also reformatted the back up hard drive. No problem. You reach for your back up tapes only to find out that the information on the tapes is unreadable..."

    Ok, so you go to the primary hard drive and make another backup.

    Another question, doesn't anyone test their backup systems?

    1. Re:I don't get it. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...e that you have also reformatted the back up hard drive."

      That implies that the original and the back up had been reformatted.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I don't get it. by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Another question, doesn't anyone test their backup systems?

      I've often been in the situation where I couldn't properly test the backup system because management decided to save money by not buying any spare hardware.

      "Hey, we bought you a tape drive and a box of tapes, quit complaining!"

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  15. Easy... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 0, Redundant


    How did they figure these files were worth $38 billion when it only cost $200000 to create them from scratch?


    RIAA / MPAA mathematicians

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  16. Backups are the devil by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because no one ever restores them regularly to test them.

    I was at a company years ago and argued for both a ton more backups than they were making and for a test restore. They were not in the mood to do either. After about nine months, for some unknown reason they had to restore a file.

    And the backup tape was unreadable. The next good backup was 17 days older.

    After that we got $30 bucks of backup tapes every week and we had a 7 day rotation with the 7th day going in the vault. And we did regular test restores once a quarter.

    You should REGULARLY test your backups.
    You should have LOTS of backups.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Backups are the devil by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible to have tapes automatically verify data? Sure, it may take a while longer for the process to finish, but atleast you'll know the process was actually worth the wait.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Backups are the devil by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Like an old boss of mine once said, "You don't have a backup if you've never done a restore."

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:Backups are the devil by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... And the thing is, $30 bucks a week is a negligible cost. A mostly automated test once every 3 months is a negligible cost. An extra vault is a negligible cost.

    4. Re:Backups are the devil by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Yes, but the catch is what are they actually verifying?

      The CRCs on the tape data blocks may all be good but the data may have been corrupted at an earlier point in the process. Plus, the tape can verify OK and still be unreadable on other tape drives.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Backups are the devil by vought · · Score: 1

      ...and two copies is not a backup.

      The third copy is the backup.

    6. Re:Backups are the devil by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      There are many sources of error in an IT system.

      The major one is the operator.

      Automatic verify only goes so far, and is no subsitute for occasionally picking on a random server, and getting _everyone_ familiar with how to resurrect it an in emergency.

    7. Re:Backups are the devil by afidel · · Score: 1

      This is the beauty of having less than intelligent users, you get to test your restore procedure on a regular basis.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Backups are the devil by digbea · · Score: 1

      I second that. People think that making backups will save their ass, but they often forget that you do not have a backup while you are not sure that it would roll out successfully. Verifying frequent backups is way too expensive and that is why I prefer to design systems as redundant as possible in addition to backups (not verifying frequent backups and verifying less-frequent ones).

      --
      whoa?
    9. Re:Backups are the devil by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      Lone-Tar does a bit-level verify of the entire backup once it's done, then emails you the results.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    10. Re:Backups are the devil by Tigwyk · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I work at a publisher and we backup incrementally on a daily basis, and full backups every weekend. I take the full backups home on a 3 week rotation (unless it's at the end/start of a month in which case I keep 'em forever) and the incremental backups are rotated weekly. I may have a lot of tapes at home, but at least I know our data is mostly safe.

      --
      "Pi is exactly 3!" *gasp*
    11. Re:Backups are the devil by jim_redwagon · · Score: 1

      >I work at a publisher and we backup....
      Wouldn't you already have everything backed up on paper? ;-)

      --
      I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
    12. Re:Backups are the devil by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used to work for a backup software company.

      The hardware; is extremely expensive. And the software ain't cheap (if you expect any degree of automation or features).

      This extortion racket is precisely why most people don't do backups, and of the few that do do backups, they do not test them. (but you've spent the money - never really understood that).

      I have memories of ten years of sob stories; guys who were calling in to tech support because they were about to lose their jobs because they were poor stewards of their employers' data. Sometimes it was our fault (software bugs, poor documentation) - sometimes it was the hardware vendors' fault (bad firmware, defective lots of tape, etc.), sometimes it was the OS vendors' fault (interoperability standards between file systems, network protocols, etc.) - sometimes, it was just bad luck. But more often than not, it was ignorance and laziness, and above all - CHEAPNESS. Some MIS hack didn't want to spring for a quality backup drive, or didn't want to take the time to test-restore data, or didn't want to hire a college intern to inspect error logs regularly for backup problems.

      It just KILLS me to see folks suffer because they weren't careful with their data.

      But at home? Screw it. I don't backup. I'm cheap.
      You've got to be able to separate valuable data from stuff you can re-install or re-download.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:Backups are the devil by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. I've had backups claim to have completed w/ checksums, only to be unable to read the tape 5 minutes later. Turns out it was a problem with the tape drive.

    14. Re:Backups are the devil by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what was happening in my case and why they wouldn't take the time to restore.

      "The backup software says the backup is good. Let's move on. We have real work to do."

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Backups are the devil by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      hehe.

      In our case, we worked with a lot of gold and it was a REAL vault.

      A big one. our tapes took up bout 2 cubic feet.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:Backups are the devil by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Software really isn't all that great either, for what it costs. Not that it isn't possible to learn how to get around in it, but lets just say not many backup apps have won usability awards...

      Hardware is also generally pretty crummy. Know of several folks in the area who have gone through the ordeal of us installing an IBM tape drive, finding out it's DOA, coming back, pulling the sucker and replacing it with another goddamn DOA drive before finally realizing the second replacement actually works. These drives retail for over a grand a piece, the tapes aren't exactly cheap either. Even buying supposed "quality drives" doesn't mean everything will go smoothly...

      Needless to say, I hear "I hate fucking tape" a lot.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    17. Re:Backups are the devil by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yeah - for a while, it seemed as if DLT would fix a lot of the reliability (and capacity) issues we were seeing with helical-scan-type drives, like DAT and 8mm. The tape, itself seemed bullet-proof back in 1997. But after a couple years of success, when the format started to get really-well established, the drive manufacturers started releasing really - lower quality, cheaply-made drives, that; while they cost the same, they were just as crappy as the cheap-ass 4mm/8mm drives that were out there.

      The software's another story.

      I watched as three different tape backup programs were axed; (Palindrome Network Archivist, NetBackup, and the ill-named "Client Exec"), through mergers and takeovers. No regulators had any problem as a thriving, competing industry consolidated from something like 20 players down to - what is it today, 3 (Symantec, IBM, CA)? A lot of good products were knifed in the crib.

      It's not that these applications were perfect - they weren't. But they were working on solving some of the usability, interoperability, and architectural problems that were endemic in the industry. They were killed, often for political reasons, and their technically deficient brothers replaced them.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  17. Where to start... by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    1) No surprise reading this:

    Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc. labored to retrieve the data, it became obvious the worst-case scenario was at hand.

    2) Always make sure the backup really works.

    3) Better procedures are needed if a single tech can reformat both hard drives in the same session

    4) Much better hardware and software are needed for data worth $38 billion.

    5) Paper backups are a good last resort and as a check on data integrity

  18. Worth how much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sounds like the file was worth $200,000. The account was worth $38B.

  19. Ask your CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be fired and leave with $30 Million. Then I'd move to the Cayman Island, having a sunbath, and asking myself between two cocktails how hard my former employees and my former state have been working to clean my mess. Well maybe I won't even ask cause I don't give a shit about it.

  20. The whole thing is a joke... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No matter what they might have lost, it wasn't worth $38 billion. The state gross product of Alaska is only $33 billion, and their tax revenue will only be a fraction of that. And it's not like they lost any of that either, just some files.

    What, another hyperbole-filled, wildly inaccurate Slashdot post? Inconceivable.

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Did you RTFA?

      The fund is worth $38 billion. Dividend payouts from the fund last year were over $650 million, about $1,107 per payout, roughly 600,000 payouts.

      This fund has nothing to do with tax revenue or annual gross product, it comes from oil revenues over a period of decades. The point of the fund is so the gov't doesn't have to pay out of a current account, and so doesn't NEED to depend on annual tax revenues.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Alaska Permanent Fund is not tax funded at all. Technically, it's not even part of the state government.

      At the simplest level, it's saved up money from the oil boom the state had in the 70's that the permanent fund corporation invests, saves, and takes care to insure it's always going to be there. Once a year it calculates earnings, subtracts operating and inflations costs, and hands out the remainder to qualifying Alaska residents. Usually it's in the area of $1000, but can fluctuate quite a bit.

      They passed $30 billion last year, the news story would indicate it's gone up a bit since then. ;)

    3. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Which is the beauty of living in Alaska... no taxes and state government is funded by outside (or in this case inside) revenues. Mind you, they might find themselves in a bit of a pinch when the oil runs out... that's why the push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    4. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by garcia · · Score: 1

      What, another hyperbole-filled, wildly inaccurate Slashdot post? Inconceivable.

      Several articles across the web quote the $38 billion dollar figure. I would go on to say that not only are you trolling but so was the media release that went out over this.

    5. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to take the blame for Ted Stevens.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by MartijnL · · Score: 1

      Which imho doesn't make the headline any less sensationalist.

      They just lost scanned images, nothing else AND they were able to recreate those images using the original documents anyway.

    7. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by ahem · · Score: 1
      .... Inconceivable.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means

      --
      Not A Sig
    8. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by garcia · · Score: 1

      They just lost scanned images, nothing else AND they were able to recreate those images using the original documents anyway.

      I worked with document imaging for a technical college from 2002 through last year. I'm not quite sure why their imaged documents were stored on magnetic/tape only. It should have been written to optical every few hours (you scan directly to magnetic and the storage solution writes that data out to the optical as it can) and thus the WORM drive cannot be formatted.

    9. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, but it's not as if the $30BN fund would have vanished into thin air if they hadn't still had this paper source material. At worse, some Alaskans might have missed out on their free handout. Or more likely got a second helping.

    10. Re:The whole thing is a joke... by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      Silly politicians are just part of the landscape in Alaska.

      In the 90's, the governor suggested the idea to build a pipeline to California to deliver them fresh drinking water. It would go along the seabed, and was coined "Hickel's Hose".

  21. Re:Easy... LOL by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    And, I have ot say those numbers were smelly. Not sure where they pulled them from.. but...

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  22. I'd hate to be the tech support guy... by condour75 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And it's not in the recycle bin? Ok, let's not panic. Click start, go to find, choose files and folders...

  23. Damn! by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That has got to rank up there w/ the all-time worst 'oh-shit' moments in that poor bastard's career (if it still exists). I wonder what the sysadmin was thinking, storing data on the same partition as the OS. No sane production environment rig that I know of would (or at least should) have that. It may be a Windows thing, but on most servers I've dinked with, the OS sat on a pair of RAID disks by itself, and all the data sat on the monster pile of disks on their own logical RAID drive (at least RAID 5... 5+0 w/ a hot spare preferred).

    That, or you'd think they'd at least have that kind of stuff stored on more than one server if it were that valuable?

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Damn! by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative

      It may be a Windows thing

      Don't look now, your bias is showing. I've seen a lot of systems, *nix and Windows where proper partitioning of drives hasn't happened. Even then the article only states that the drive containing the data was erased; it mentions nothing about the OS being on the same drive. And of courser RAID doesn't help in this, unless you have a very delayed snapshot mirroring system; identical mirrored drives don't help when you delete a file because, guess what, mirrors stay the same, so it's deleted everywhere.

      Heck my pathetic excuse for an ISP in the UK managed to blow away 3 months worth of mail and that was on a NetApp, moving to a Sun NAS. Admin stupidity happens on all platforms; pretending it doesn't on your chosen one is more stupid than deleting a crucial file.

    2. Re:Damn! by Dan_Bercell · · Score: 1

      Windows recommends doing the RAID 1 OS partition and RAID 5 data partition

    3. Re:Damn! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      It may be a Windows thing

      Don't look now, your bias is showing.

      Actually, not really. from TFA:
      "Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc..."

      It may have indeed been a Windows requirement that a given app and OS share a disk, at least as far as some apps go (some of which can get very picky if they don't reside in "C:\Program Files" or somesuch, but no mention was made, so...) I don't know for certain, and any further speculations on my part stop cold at "might", as stated in my original post.

      I've seen a lot of systems, *nix and Windows where proper partitioning of drives hasn't happened."

      I agree with you - I've seen more than a few myself on nearly all OSes, and have had to correct more than a few when it opportunity came to rebuild/re-organize the box.

      "Even then the article only states that the drive containing the data was erased; it mentions nothing about the OS being on the same drive."

      This niggles me, though... Why would he ever have to "reformat" a data-only partition (and "...mistakenly reformatted the backup drive, as well")? Making more space, or repairing a busted/corrupted disk (hence my mention of RAID) I could understand, but the FA merely says that he reformatted it. Blew it away. Could be that the "drive" was being upgraded size-wise, but even in tech-illiterate reporter's hands, "reformat" is understood well enough to carry some information with it. So, this leads us back to: why would you reformat a partition that only contained data?

      Admin stupidity happens on all platforms

      Again, agreed perfectly, and I would never assume otherwise.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Damn! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What are they thinking doing any kind of format on the one and only one system that has all the account information for such a fund? $2000 for an identical server, rebuild/format there, then transfer the data. But spending $2000 to save $200,0000 doesn't make any sense for most businesses. They act like teenagers, "it won't happen to me."

    5. Re:Damn! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      >I've seen a lot of systems, *nix and Windows where proper partitioning of drives hasn't happened.

      You've just hit my biggest argument against preloaded Linux. It's not even possible to do it "right," because the right way varies by anticipated usage. Though I guess I've done a number of systems with / (root), /boot, swap, and /home as a pretty decent desktop setup.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    6. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a large company, (about 2 trillion dollars, give or take). We have a company policy of never reformating drives. Ever. When a machine is decommissioned the drive goes into the long term storage vault for many years.

      Of course, you are right, and we never store data on the OS disks as well.

    7. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LVM

    8. Re:Damn! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Good for fixing things after the fact. Better when used to originate a decent partitioning setup. I don't believe LVM is used on Linux base installs or what preinstalls exist.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Damn! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Depends on the distro - Fedora Core (and RHEL, I believe) does Logical Volumes and as default install, to wit:

      mount shows this bad boy as line 1:

      /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 on / type ext3 (rw)

      fdisk -l picks up:

      Disk /dev/hda: 80.0 GB, 80060424192 bytes
      255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9733 cylinders
      Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

      Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
      /dev/hda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux
      /dev/hda2 14 9733 78075900 8e Linux LVM

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    10. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be suprised. I work in the digital document imaging field. In fact, it's likely my company bid on, but did not get that alaskian job in the first place.

      We've had clients with "servers" that consist of a dell desktop with a USB hub and 15 USB external HDDs, in varying enclosures. These are government, or government related industries. (title mainly)

      We've also had full on IBM blade servers with associated NAS storage go up in smoke for no apperent reason. It really doesn't matter how good your backups are, they will eventually get toasted, murphy would point out that they would get toasted at the most improbable/inopertune time. As a matter of course.

      The issue isn't the cost to replace it. The issue is the cost of not having it at all. Which, in most cases, is simply NOT AN OPTION. So not only are there paper records, stored in a building somewhere (the basement, leaky most likely) there is probably a microfilm copy somewhere too. If they are mandate controlled documents (IE fedral law regulates their archival) then there is a film archive with strict standards somewhere in the state that holds all the film. This of course, is not as good as it might sound.

      I work mostly with title records, so we'll use that as an example. Here is a typical document path.

      1880 - document recorded by hand in a bound book.
      1900 - Book is microfilmed onto 35mm film.
      1940 - Microfilm is copied, and turned into fiche or "copyflow" (copyflow is a low quality xerox process)
      1950 - Copy is turned back into "original" film.
      1970 - 5th generation film or paper copy is microfilmed AGAIN onto 16mm.
      1980 - oops we used bad film, make copies of the bad film before it degrades compleately.
      1990 and up - come to my company, or one like it to turn the film or late generation copy into a useable digital document. Then make a NEW film copy for the archive that is standards compliant.

      2000 and up- it's all done digitaly from the start now, but it's only archived onto microfilm because the government STILL doesn't recoginize any other "archive" format.

      So the land you buy tmrw, includes a history (typically called "to dirt" to account for ownership since inception of that "plot") that includes 5th or later generation copies, made with varying degrees of technical experties, mainly by government lackies that know they can't possibly be fired for anything other than gross misconduct. (which oddly, not properly recording or archiving vital documents doesn't count as misconduct)

      The US government keeps an immense amount of records. Mostly on microfilm. Microfilm can last upto 150 years. Typically, it doesn't. 75 is pushing it. 90+ is a crap shoot. I've seen immaculate first gen film from 1880. And I've seen film from the 1970's that has turned to dust, literally.

      Oh, and did you know that storing Diazo film near poly-sulfide film (two common types of microfilm) causes one to erase the other? Yeah, no one else knows that either apparently.

      The look on a county officials face when you show them that half their film archive is BLANK is usually worth quite a bit. We try and get pictures when possible. "but but, you can fix it right? " hehe, sure, got an electron microscope and about 2000 years? We could get 10% back. Luckily for us, the government does one thing well. Redundant copies. Of course, no garuntee they haven't been burried in a farm yard in a cardboard box for the last 100 years. Growing god knows what.

  24. This should be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This should actually be a best-practice kind of situation really. Accidents happen. Both hard disks got formatted. The tapes were shit. BUT, we had a paper trail. It was painstaking, but it was recoverable. EXCELLENT! This is exactly why banks have paper records of everything, and why they pay a LOT of money to have them properly stored.

    That said... the excerpt is a bit misleading. The data was worth $38 billion. They didn't lose $38 billion. They managed to get it back in shape for $200,000, which is not pennies, but probably well worth the effort.

  25. Alaskan Pipeline by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bet it cost a lot less than $200K to bribe the government officials (probably with a few bottles of wine) not to check whether they were protecting their $38B investment with more than $45K worth of IT staff.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Alaskan Pipeline by hmbcarol · · Score: 1

      Who had to bribe who? This had NOTHING to do with the "Alaskan Pipeline" and everything to do with the Permanent Fund. Every year Alaska write checks to almost every man, woman, and child living in the state distributing a percentage of the States oil royalty to the people.

      The oil companies could care less, they've already paid the money. The $200,000 the state paid to recover involved rescanning and doing keyentry on the thousands of applications citizens wrote to get their share.

    2. Re:Alaskan Pipeline by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If the Alaskan Permanent Fund is spending so little on IT and oversight to make sure it's better than this, you can be sure there's lots of other problems favoring the oil companies. Or is there still some doubt about how they work, on which to base some "benefit of the doubt"?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  26. Value = cost of loss, != $38B by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The cost of the loss was the $200,000 to rescan the documents plus the cost of not having those documents online for part of the past 9 months, plus any related costs.

    Think of it this way:
    If you lose a $38 billion dollar check in a fire, but it only costs you $100 to get the bank to re-issue the check, your loss is $100 plus a few days' interest. A few million dollars in interest is a far cry from $38 billion.

    If they'd shredded the boxes they'd be in real trouble.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Value = cost of loss, != $38B by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that would have been a better ending to the story, "they then went back to the original documents in cardboard boxes, but alas their auditing firm used ex-Arthur Andersen employees and they had all been shredded."

  27. Data recovery? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With hard drives, data doesn't just go away. Sure, it may not be recoverable with simple "undelete" software, but data recovery experts will charge far less than $200,000 to pull important files off of a wiped hard drive.

    The same goes for tapes. There is no mention in the article of why they were "unreadable" what level of damage there was to the data, etc.

    We all make mistakes, but 3 layers of backup data storage all failing suggests a horrifically poor system in-place. Not JUST "very bad," that's hard to believe, without some massive natural disaster causing it.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  28. I could be a douche and say it has never happened by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 1

    But I'll admit that about 6 years ago, when moving from one old laptop to another, I accidentally erased all of the data from my main and my backup Jaz disks before ensuring that every piece of data from 6th grade through my first year of college was backed up onto new media. It wasn't that I didn't have a good strategy for backup: it was adequate for my needs at the time. It's not that I didn't know I shouldn't format disks with important stuff on them: I figured I had transferred it already. At age 18, I didn't have the money for recovery services, nor did I have much of a printed record of anything.

    What happens when you fuck up that big? Take it like a man, and live with the shitty consequences. Know that there's nobody to blame but yourself, but learn from that catastrophe so it never happens again.

  29. Not to bad by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    That they cuold get recovery for only 200K.

    I know that many companies would not be able to recover information lost in that manner.

    I worked for a company that had not had a back up, at ALL for 4 years. All there business was lectronic. If the system had crashed there company would die. I spent 6 mopnths trying to them to pay for a back up system. FInally the provided a tape drive thawas 5 years old and completly inadequate... I decided to go elsewhere.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Not to bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English isn't your first language, is it?

    2. Re:Not to bad by slcdb · · Score: 1

      . I spent 6 mopnths trying to them to pay for a back up system.
      Maybe they failed to get you an adequate backup solution, not because they didn't understand the gravity of the situation, but because they couldn't understand your indecipherable request?
      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
    3. Re:Not to bad by loraksus · · Score: 1

      They say that spelling is the first thing to go when you're drunk.
      And after working in a place like that for a few years, the guy has the right to get a little shitfaced every now and then ;)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  30. Something else worth mentioning.. by ka24 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why were the drives being formatted anyway? You don't need to do such things with some OSes.

    1. Re:Something else worth mentioning.. by Detritus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please report to your nearest Microsoft customer reeducation camp.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Something else worth mentioning.. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I assume government agencies are required to wipe hard drives before releasing them to be junked, given to another dept, sold, etc. The info on those drives was full of very personal info (birth certificate images, etc).

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  31. Misinformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It reads: Now imagine wiping out a disk drive containing information for an account worth $38 billion (29 billion).

    Thats "For an account worth"....not...."files worth"

  32. $200k for recovering $38BN - very cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the big deal, $200K is nothing compared to $38BN. Besides, the accident created (temporary) jobs.

    1. Re:$200k for recovering $38BN - very cheap by greginnj · · Score: 1

      Besides, the accident created (temporary) jobs.
      Ah, the famous broken window analogy ... Great! Let's help Alaska's economy even more, and bulk some more drives!
      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  33. Investment VS Opportune Cost by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Lets say you have a small software development company. You have 6 employees that cost you on average of $90k per year each (including taxes, 401k match, health care, salary, office space, etc...) Now lets say that it takes you 2 years to build your application. Over those two years your team spent 20% of the time in meetings, 15% of the time goofing off, 10% of the time debugging, 20% of the time designing/planning, 5% of the time training, and the rest (25%) actually making progress on code.

    Your investment for that final product is roughly $1.08 million dollars.

    Now, imagine the day before you are sending the code off to the press to go gold, you lose everything. Luckily, you retain all of your staff, and they are all very familiar with the project. At this point, they can start working on recoding the entire project. No more meetings, no more design decisions, no more planning, no more training, and less goofing off. You can now re-create that final product in about 35% of the total time.

    Your opportune cost to replace the final product is roughly $378,000.

    So yes, the file could have absolutely been worth $38 Billion, yet only cost $200,000 to recreate.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      yes... not to mention that presumably if things were being moved to a digital format, there was a plan perhaps at some point to get rid of the hard copies. And so I wonder if the saving grace in the situation is really the fact that they hadn't gotten rid of the paper documents yet (and maybe now, they won't).

    2. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your 35% for the captured value of the project is reasonable. Your 0.000526% figure for the captured value of the file isn't.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by RingDev · · Score: 1

      In this specific case ($48bil -> $200k) the $48 billion was not the value of the file, the investment into the file, or anything else dealing with the file. The file only described the $48bil. In this case it's just a matter of poor/sensational headlining that makes it sound so extreme.

      But I still stand by the fact that a huge investment value can have a (comparatively) insignificant opportunity cost. Especially in situations where part of the huge investment is tooling up a system to be capable of the goal. Even if you lose what ever product you were working on, if you retain the tools and the knowledge, your reconstruction cost will be much much lower.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by maxume · · Score: 1

      Right, but this is what you said:

      "the file could have absolutely been worth $38 Billion, yet only cost $200,000 to recreate."

      And it seemed worth pointing out that it probably wasn't true, just based on the size of the numbers involved.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by RingDev · · Score: 1

      In this specific case, it wasn't true. But it is totally plausible.

      Lets say your goal is to come up with trending data dealing with the US population. If you spend 50 years gathering Census data, forming your theories you want to test or patterns you want to investigate, and finally create an application to produce easily readable reports based on that information, then you could easily have spent billions upon billions of dollars on the project as a whole. But if you were to lose everything but the paper records and what not, all you would have to recreate is the application portion and data entry. Which could, as I've previously mentioned, be done at a fraction of the cost of the initial investment. Yes, it is an extreme case that would have a 10s of billions of dollars invested to a hundreds of thousands of dollars opportune cost, but the possibility is very real.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    6. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by maxume · · Score: 1

      So put a number on the possibility. I don't think that even the government invests in data gathering that reductive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Investment VS Opportune Cost by RingDev · · Score: 1

      "So put a number on the possibility."

      Why? There is no max number. Hell, someone could fly to the moon, record some data, make an observation based on that data (the goal of the trip to the moon) and then have a catastrophic failure on re-entry. Billions of dollars down the tube, unless someone manage to make a backup of the data that the observer recorded, in which case the observation could be remade for an insignificant investment as compared to sending another mission to the moon.

      Any time you are working with a large investment you should keep an eye on your opportune, and potential opportune costs. (What is the cost of doing it this way, what is the cost of not doing it this way, what is the cost if something goes wrong) Being able to explain to your pointy hair manager that the code repository represents a $4 million investment that would cost $1.25 million in labor to recreate might be just the angle you need to justify spending $15,000 on a new backup system.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  34. To err is human... by Slipgrid · · Score: 1

    To err is human, to really f-up requires root.

    From , "nine months worth of information concerning the yearly payout from the Alaska Permanent Fund was gone."

    Really? Why is the that the oil money payouts or the military contract accounts are the only ones that ever get deleted? The IRS is using the same database that they've been using for the past fifty plus years, but they never seem to have that problem.

    1. Re:To err is human... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Jeez, really ging for the whacko conspiresy thing pretty early in the morning, aren't you?

      A)Not all agencies have the same budget.
      B)Not all agencies have the same people in charge
      C)Not all agencies have the same equipment.

      The government is made up of many levels, many people, many groups, many agencies. To compare ones data integerty to anothers is just ignorant in the extreme.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:To err is human... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, really ging for the whacko conspiresy thing pretty early in the morning, aren't you?

      Clearly, they had 38 Billion dollars in funding. That's not a conspiracy theory.

  35. Remember kids... by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

    It's not about the backup, it's about the restore.

    If you aren't regulary testing your recovery capabilities, your nightly backups are masturbation. It may make you feel good for a bit, but it's not satisfying.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  36. re: tape backup by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Where I work, we finally phased out our tape backup drives last year in our server room. A product called the "CRU Dataport" is a very nice removable, hot-swap hard drive frame and carrier assembly. You just install their frame in an external 5.25" drive bay, and buy a set of carriers for it. Install suitable SATA drive drives in each carrier, and switch them out nightly just like backup tapes. Backup software like "Backup Exec" can still be used, but it will treat each cartridge just like it did the backup tapes.

    Tape still has a few advantages though. For one thing, they're less fragile than a hard drive. They're also less valuable to the average employee than a SATA hard drive, so there's less worry of one disappearing if you give it to someone to take off-site regularly.

    But all in all, we like the switch. Backups complete in less time, and it's faster restoring selected files. (No rewinding or tape re tensioning needed, etc.)

  37. Yea, I wonder... by mr_3ntropy · · Score: 1

    ..Alaska.

  38. I lost 75 trillion dollars! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
    I launched notepad and wrote 75 trillion dollars and saved the file. And, because I was feeling very extravagent, I deleted the file. I am rich. I can afford to lose 75 trillion dollars without batting and eyelid and am man enough to brag the info to the whole world.

    Come on guys, it took only 200,000$ to create the data. It probably had records of payments totalling 38 billion dollars. But what they lost was 200,000$ not 38 billion dollars.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:I lost 75 trillion dollars! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      SSShhhh don't let the cat out of the bag that electronic money isn't real.

      Seriously, you are correct. This is a story of a government agency that did things right, but like all those stories it gets twisted.

      "the governmen"' handles 100's of thousands of projects that are very succesfdull, but there's no story there so all we hear is bad things. It has gotten so bad that peopel only expect bad things and incompetency from the government.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I lost 75 trillion dollars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUY YOURSELF a fuggin clue.... The data in PAPER format was still there. I'm just GUESSING that collecting the PAPER version of all that data Might have cost QUITE a bit more than $200k.

      So... Loose the electronic and the Paper. NOW go about recreating the electronic version. NOW you will spend your $38 billion.

      Am I the only person who gets this from the first post? I see so many of you saying it only cost $200K to "RECREATE" the data. NO, it only cost $200K to recreate the ELECTRONIC VERSION of the $38Billion data set.

      Now... I'm hoping that you undertand this... if not... I'd Ship you a clue, but FedEx does not insure Clues.... and you need to get the CLUE.

      - Hateful elitist Jackass.

    3. Re:I lost 75 trillion dollars! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Try walking into a bank and withdrawing $38B without any sort of evidence that you own/control that money.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    4. Re:I lost 75 trillion dollars! by clnelson · · Score: 1

      These were applications for the yearly payout -- they had nothing to do with the actual funds. This wasn't a $38billion dollar dataset.

  39. Pshh by RMelon · · Score: 1

    Alaskans....

  40. Data Volume by tempest69 · · Score: 2, Informative
    800,000 images * 300 kb /image (decent scan after compression) = 800k * 300kb = 800 MB * 300 = 2.4GB * 100= 240 Gigs..

    Id skip on the DVD backup, sounds like a mistake waiting to happen. Backing this up to a network drive over Gig-E is still going to be a mess, but it should be a few hours of slacktime.. (yes in theory you could manage 240 gigs in roughly 35 minutes over gig-E, but you couldnt pull off enough seeks in that time via the hard drive (800k seeks * 8 ms/seek= 6400s ~= 106 minutes).

    Storm

    1. Re:Data Volume by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet you're underestimating that data by at least an order of magnitude. Remember, these are government documents they're scanning. There's no such thing as a 1 page document to get money from the government. :)

      But I agree with your statement that DVDs are pointless. a couple of 100+GB tapes are a much better way to go, and much easier to deal with considering that this is mostly static data.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Data Volume by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      800,000 images * 300 kb /image
      Sir, you have a very impressive pr0n collection. I wish to shake you by the^W^W^W^W congratulate you.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    3. Re:Data Volume by tempest69 · · Score: 1
      They did say 800k pages not documents.. which was my first basis. the second is that it fit on one hard drive. So it gets down under one TB of data. so the pages could be up to 1.2 mb/page and still fit on a commercial hard drive.

      Storm

    4. Re:Data Volume by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that their statement "reformatted the backup hard drive" meant a single physical hard drive. It could just as easily been a RAID array, or a SAN. I would certainly not bet on what they meant by "hard drive" in that story, nor that they even got the actual technical facts right.

      The story states he deleted the mains, then reformatted the backup, and the tapes were corrupted. Sounds like a top-notch tech there if it were merely single hard drives. Getting a backup RAID array or SAN online is a little different though, and might lend itself to massive corruption if done incorrectly. Hint, reformatting a single disk is trivial to undo, so much so that even a reformat done by an ignorant twit should result in a recoverable drive with most of the information available. A RAID array or SAN however can be painful, although I doubt this was on a SAN.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  41. Re:I could be a douche and say it has never happen by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens when you fuck up that big? If you the CEO of a major corporation, you get a severance check that looks like a phone number. If you're the IT plebe, you get to look for a new job.
    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  42. They should thank the tech by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    Having worked with people from "statewide" (what they call statewide IT in Alaska), this is a minor screwup when compared to what is possible there. They should thank the tech for reminding them that they should back up data just like 50% of other government organizations do.

    Actually there are some well-intentioned people in government IT in Alaska, but because the work is tricky (everything in Alaska is quirky), and the pay is poor, and the cost of living is relatively high, most of the good people take off for the 48 sooner or later, where their ability to do tricky work is better compensated.

  43. ontrack by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    Ontrack Easy Recovery

    alright, it's proprietary, so for us open source evangelists it is evil
    but this data recovery tool does wonders...

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  44. from the state? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    costs to reissue a check?

    $100? sure... try losing an unemployment check some time... paperwork out the fanny.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:from the state? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Yes, the better examples would have actually been destroying a check written out to CASH that you intended to cash for yourself.

    2. Re:from the state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $100? sure... try losing an unemployment check some time... paperwork out the fanny. If you're in the UK, my apologies to your vagina.
  45. Lucky by toxique · · Score: 0

    At least they did not deleted the pr0n stuff

    --
    - This can't be... - Be what? Be real?
  46. Someone is trying to cover their ass by Unique2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Primary disk: Accidently deleted.
    Backup disk: Accidently formatted.
    Tape: Unreadable.

    What about the other tapes in the cycle? Did you not test it before? What about data recovery on the hard disks?

    Thats a lot of unfortunate co-incidents and a lot of questions. It sounds more like the reality is that none of these ever existed and someone got caught-out.

    --
    No trees were harmed in the posting of this message. However, a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
    1. Re:Someone is trying to cover their ass by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice what can equally be attributed to stupidity.

      I see this as a corollary to Ockham's Razor.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:Someone is trying to cover their ass by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sounds more like the reality is that none of these ever existed and someone got caught-out.

      Having worked on backups in an Alaskan company run very similarly to the department in question, I think it sounds reasonable. I was a consultant at the time, and I pointed out that the backups have never been tested. It was on the weekly report. It was on the weekly report for about a year. Many people making much more than you make saw that the backups have never been tested. Then there was a crash. It turned out that the backups, set up long before I got there, were set in a tape library. There were 5 tapes and a cleaning tape. The backups would backup server 1 onto tape 1. Then, server 2 onto tape on - set to overwrite. The least important server in the room was last on the backup list, and it was the last to issue the command every night to backup onto tape 1 - set to overwrite. So the email was gone forever. Somehow, the consulting company I work for that pointed out for over a year that backups weren't tested and may not work was to blame for not fixing what was broken long before we were brought in. So I find the description of events quite plausible.

    3. Re:Someone is trying to cover their ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primary disk: Accidentally deleted.
      Backup disk: Accidentally formatted.
      Tape: Unreadable.

      Claiming a $37.0008 Billion cost savings to your CIO .... priceless
      For everything else, there's Master Card.

    4. Re:Someone is trying to cover their ass by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1
      Agreed, and here are two applicable threads from Slashdot history:

      From this thread

      In the real world, holding on to useless stuff costs a nontrivial amount of money. Everything needs space, which either costs money or takes away from your living space, and it needs to be organized, which gets significantly harder with more stuff. With computers, though, there is a very low cost of archiving things after they are deemed no longer useful. In support of the comment:

      What about the other tapes in the cycle? Did you not test it before? What about data recovery on the hard disks? This question has been raised before

      There are probably more than a hundred different archives, tarballs, and tape backups from which they could salvage most, if not all, of the poor woman's e-mail.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    5. Re:Someone is trying to cover their ass by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      I'd say there's a very small chance that that would happen.

      and this has only happened once, as far as I know.

      That seems, at first glance, to match the odds. How many times have you heard of three backup systems failing?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  47. What I want to know by waif69 · · Score: 1

    ... is how the tech told the boss. I can't even imagining how I would explain that big of a "Oops!" to my boss and he is relatively tolerant of mistakes.

    1. Re:What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he mentioned it in his suicide note?

  48. When you can manage to fit over 2-3 terabytes by way2trivial · · Score: 1
    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:When you can manage to fit over 2-3 terabytes by tdeg · · Score: 1

      Max capacity 6TB. Its not as big as it sounds.

  49. $200,000? by 0123456 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Surely they could just have outsourced the job to India for $2,000?

    1. Re:$200,000? by tdeg · · Score: 1

      Yea, nothing like sending your citizen's personal information oversees. Sounds like a hell of a plan.

    2. Re:$200,000? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Yea, nothing like sending your citizen's personal information oversees. Sounds like a hell of a plan.

      It's a much better idea to bring the overseas workers in on H1-B visas instead!

      Or, there's no way an underpaid American worker would compromise the data for some extra cash on the side. Only ferreners would do that! Terrorists!

      --
      My other car is first.
  50. Where to now... by baharris18 · · Score: 1

    So, if you're already manning an outpost in Alaska, and you screw up, where do you get banished to from there?

    1. Re:Where to now... by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      Redmond WA.

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  51. Data Recovery options? by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    Even with a reformat, if it is the same file system, as long as you didn't start overwriting the data, then data recovery is usually not an issue with the correct software. Overwriting by formatting with a different file system usually requires the more expensive file recovery option. Even then, spending a few thousand dollars to recover 38 BILLION dollars worth of data is probably justifiable

    If you then made the disk a linux swap partition, you might be hosed. They don't say what the file system was. Even so it is hard to imagine that they couldn't do a data recovery on it. On the other hand, making people rescan the data is possibly a good exercise on why we do backups.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Data Recovery options? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      About a month or 2 back, a slip of the fingers turned my root filesystem into a linux swap partition.

      Google was my friend. Shortly I learned more about backup superblocks, how to run "mkfs.ext3 -n" to do a dummy mkfs and find out where my backup superblocks are, and "fsck.ext3 -b nnn" to repair the filesystem using the backup superblock.

      I was back running in less than an hour, including google time. Repairing an accidental mkswap on top of ext3 is actually one of the easier things to fix.

      On the other hand, having a system and procedures that made it possible to kill regular and backup data that way, and storing unconfirmed tapes, is clearly not a good idea. Whenever I burn a CD/DVD, I take the few extra minutes and verify it right away. If the backup tape was only a few months old, odds are it was improperly written, as opposed to degraded. They should check their other backup tapes.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Data Recovery options? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1
      > Whenever I burn a CD/DVD, I take the few extra minutes and verify it right away.

      I once burned a cd containing what turned out to be only half of a friend's home directory. After that, I became extremely paranoid about verifying burned data, and that paranoia has saved me extra work (although not on the order of the original event) since then.

      Since k3b has gone 1.0 recently, tell me if my add to bug 77432 is overly paranoid?

    3. Re:Data Recovery options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite little disk verification script. Enjoy!

      #!/bin/zsh
      dir="$1"
      if [ "$dir" = "" ] ;then
                      dir=/cd
      fi
      mount $dir
      for foo in **/*(D) ;do
                      if [ -d "$foo" ] ;then
                                      # **/*(.) doesn't work; naughty zsh
                                      echo entering directory "$dir/$foo/"
                      elif echo "$foo" |grep "flattened_dir_for_par2v0.3/" > /dev/null ;then
                                      echo skipping "$foo"
                      else
                                      echo testing $foo ; cmp ./"$foo" "$dir/$foo"
                                                      if [ $? != 0 ] ;then
                                                                      bad="Not all ok!"
                                                                      echo "Badness found comparing $foo\!"
                                                                      beep
                                      fi
                      fi
      done
      echo
      echo $bad
      umount $dir
      sleep 2 #be patient
      eject $dir

    4. Re:Data Recovery options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -snip-
      If the backup tape was only a few months old, odds are it was improperly written, as opposed to degraded. They should check their other backup tapes.
      -/snip-

      No,no - you don't understand. The backup tapes are recycled, and after 4000 or so passes, the oxide just falls off. I was written properly, but there was just no oxide to write on...

    5. Re:Data Recovery options? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      It's terrifying how many idiot friends of mine will download something and burn it on the cheapest media they can find at 97x and not tick the goddamn "verify" option in the burning package.

      It's a few extra minutes to know that you can DEFINATELY delete that old data.

      Sigh

    6. Re:Data Recovery options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check it out, esp tiger which screams on AMD 64:
      http://md5deep.sourceforge.net/

      cd orig_toplvl_dir
      md5deep -rl . > /tmp/orig.md5s
      cd copy_toplvl_dir
      md5deep -x /tmp/orig.md5s -rl .


  52. Why not $300 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is Slashdot, not a reputable source of information, but the headline and write-up are so sensational that the editor of the National Enquirer is feeling uncomfortable just reading it. (Yeah, they read /. They read EVERYTHING!)

    Seriously, they lost data that had to be rescanned into the computer.

    Total cost of mistake: $220,700
    (including $71,800 for consultants!)

    Hmmmm... Seems a bit less than $38 Billion.

    By this logic if you lose a file that belongs to one of the large brokerages, the data loss could be in the Trillions!!!

    Can I claim losing one of my personal files as a certain percentage of my total life-long income? If so that scan of Her with the grits that my stupid little brother deleted would be worth tens of thousands of dollars, at least!

  53. EasyRecovery Pro may have fixed it.. by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

    .. assuming that only a quick-format has been done.

    Might even be able to recover from a full format, though I've not had experience with that..

  54. DVDs are a joke. by mosch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An LTO Ultrium 3 tape holds 400GB uncompressed, and you can buy libraries that hold hundreds or thousands of these tapes (and dozens of drives).

    Disc to disc backup is gaining acceptance for some applications, but there are other places where the massive storage capacity of tape just can't be beat.

    The idea of DVD as a business-class backup medium is almost perfectly slashdottastic.

    1. Re:DVDs are a joke. by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      You forget to mention that such a tape (just the tape) is also as expensive as a 250Gbyte HD.
      Add robots, and it gets seriously expensive for large installations...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:DVDs are a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 10 Sun T10000A drives in one of my robots that I keep busy 95% of the day. Just last year I wrote 5PB of backup data onto my 500GB T10K tapes and 200GB 9940 tapes. DVDs are nice for home, but for enterprise scale data, tape is really the only option. My 60TB of SATA disk helps to buffer some of the backups, but there is no way my company is buying me enough SATA to do everything I need.

    3. Re:DVDs are a joke. by mosch · · Score: 1

      Your comment is incredibly slashdotty.

      You can buy a 100TB tape library for about $200k, and you'd be able to expand that to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100PB before you had a capacity issue. The whole thing would take about 100 square feet to start, wouldn't generate much heat or use much power.

      Or you can buy a SATA-based virtual tape library that generates more heat, uses more power, and stores 70TB for about the same price. The SATA VLT won't be expandable though, as you can't just add more slots when you want more storage.

      So yes, hard drives are a fantastic option if you're okay with higher cost of ownership, higher initial cost, and want to trade that for access speed. However if the goal is to save money, they're just not a viable option.

      And please don't pretend that a home-brew solution would work here. That would involve even more power, and more importantly, it would add significant staffing cost.

  55. No big deal by Micklewhite · · Score: 0

    Fortunately this is the government we're talking about so it's not a big deal.. If this was a software company, or studio there'd be bloody hell to pay.

    --
    I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
  56. Want to Bet... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They've been overwriting the same set of backup tapes since 1983? I'd be surprised if it was a dedicated tape system -- sounds like it's some cheap tape drive sitting on someone's system. Sounds like this mistake will cost them more than a pretty hefty storage solutions from one of the big companies that specialize in that sort of thing. Think they'll go shopping around once they're done scanning all that data back in? I'd be a bit surprised if they do...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Want to Bet... by dishpig · · Score: 1

      Not unless they're cassette tapes Rip Van Winkle.

    2. Re:Want to Bet... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      In many government agencies, labor is "free", but capital expenditures for hardware are very difficult to get approved. Don't expect rational behavior from a system designed by a legislature.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  57. I don't get it.... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

    The data on the drive should be recoverable with the right tools...none of which are expensive. There are even some companies that specialize in recovering data from this kind of loss. I have done it several times for customers, it's no biggy if you know how to deal with it.

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  58. Easy... do what my old company used to do by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Use DAT tapes for near-line storage.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  59. Re: tape backup by Sobrique · · Score: 1
    I agree. There's many places where disks are way better than tapes. At the moment, we backup to disk first, and destage onto tape for our retention period. Works nice, and gives us the best of both worlds.

    Although to be fair, we've not had much need for tape recovery for quite some time - filesystem snapshots are really really good for 'user has been a muppet and deleted his excel file'.

  60. So the data wasn't worth $38 billion... by pegr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "staff worked overtime for several months to rescan everything at an additional cost of $200,000."
     
    Sounds like the data was worth $200,000...
     
    I often have trouble dealing with business leads that can't seem to determine the value of their data. I ask them "What would the Russian Mafia pay for it?"...

  61. Always remember, Backup systems by fearadhach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are NOT restore systems. Restoration is a totally different operation, and not one that the backup solutions people invest a lot of effort in. You doubt me? Try to restore an Exchange Server from tapes (Backupexec) after losing and re-building the server.

  62. Testing DR by BSG75 · · Score: 1

    This is a classic case of government incompetance. Its also an example of why we test DR plans. A very simple DR test would have most likely spotted the bad tapes. That and a decent tape rotation system, which they obviously did not have since they were forced to recall the paper and re-input.

  63. Not possible by davevr · · Score: 1

    Imagine you're reformatting a hard drive so you can do a clean install but then realize that you have also reformatted the back up hard drive.
    Um, sorry, I can't imagine this.
  64. You Cost Taxpayers $200,000 and... by lys1123 · · Score: 1

    Former Revenue Commissioner Bill Corbus said no one was ever blamed for the incident.

    "Everybody felt very bad about it and we all learned a lesson. There was no witch hunt," Corbus said.


    Yeah, that pretty much sums up working for the government.

    1. Re:You Cost Taxpayers $200,000 and... by blakmac · · Score: 1

      ...except that noone feels bad, and there is always a witchhunt...

      --
      http://wstewart.php0h.com - the sugarbuzz project blog
  65. Vista by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    They may of been trying to do a clean install of vista and it some how took out the back up disk and the same time as the main disk. And they where using dell systems.

  66. Did They Bother To Check P2P? by hduff · · Score: 1

    Did they bother to look on the P2P networks for a copy of their data files? You can still find just about anything there . . .

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  67. Data Recovery Experts Anyone? by DnemoniX · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't you simply spend a couple grand on sending the drives to somebody like Ontrack? Several years ago one of the techs at a firm I worked for did the same thing to an accounting firms server. Our insurance paid for the Ontrack recovery. During the process I got a mini-tour of one of their facilities. These guys are seriously hard core about recovery. If it was just a simple format they could have probably handled it via a remote connection.

    1. Re:Data Recovery Experts Anyone? by Zaknafein500 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts precisely. A simple format is easy to recover from, and even the $400 attempt fee would be worth trying. We sent a drive off to DriveSavers just the other day, and they recovered all the data even though the drive itself was completley dead. The real waste here is that they didn't use all the available resoruces to recover the data.

      --

      "The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
  68. There Goes our PFD by thundergeek · · Score: 1

    All the money used to pay labor to recreate the files comes right out of our PFD fund, which means we'll get paid less for some id10T who can't tell what hard drive he's working on.

    Any of you IT admin work on more than one HD at a time? How many times have you pooched the wrong drive?

    There are many up here in Alaska who believe this was intentional, as the PFD has been under attack for years by those working in the government who want to keep the money and use it for stupid things like installing round-a-bouts. The one at the University sucks! And people have voiced their concern, yet the gov says they will install more!

    The money comes from the oil revenues generated, which is supposed to be divided up among the residents of Alaska. Ours last year was about $1200, and it was supposed to go up this year. Hopefully this years has already been calculated and locked in.

    But if next year the amount is lower because of this goof, I can tell you that someone in Alaska will put a death threat on this poor saps tail. You don't mess with a sourdough's pfd!

    L8r

    1. Re:There Goes our PFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your PFD will be lowered, looks like they're trying to spread it out so you only lose 37 cents... Bad news for you, but great news for me. Though I'm not an Alaska resident.

  69. They depended on a backup TAPE? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
    ***You reach for your back up tapes only to find out that the information on the tapes is unreadable.***

    They depended solely on TAPE backup? ... sigh ... they aren't alone in that. But it's time proven really, really bad idea. If I had a dollar for every tape drive that I have encountered that was apparently working but was either creating unreadable tapes, or was omitting important files because of misconfiguration, I'd be a wealthy man. Tapes are fine for "we'll try to get it back, but we may not be able to" type storage. And there is a valid need for that kind of storage. But for the only copy of really important data?

    Sure, other backup media can have problems also, but IMO tapes never have been and probably never will be reliable enough to be the sole backup media for anything really important.

    And where, pray tell, was the off-site backup? Billions of dollars worth of Acoounts Payable data, and they don't have a copy off site? What is their plan if there is a fire, flood, explosion, etc?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    1. Re:They depended on a backup TAPE? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      And what would you suggest?

      External hard drives for backup have a relatively poor record - mostly because of intermittent use (powered on for an hour a week or so) and poor results in being moved (dropped). Also, when you exceed the size of a physical drive it gets complicated to restore.

      Remote online services? Nobody has the bandwidth to back up "commercial" or "enterprise" levels of data that way.

      CD and DVD is far, far less recoverable than tape. And while their transportability is pretty good, their data life isn't as good as tape in most cases.

      Tape has a 50+ year history and while some drives (TRAVAN) are pretty awful, they make tape systems today that are extremely reliable. Certainly more reliable than anything else I've seen. Yes, such systems are a bit expensive, but enterprise-level backups are going to be expensive.

    2. Re:They depended on a backup TAPE? by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***Tape has a 50+ year history***

      Indeed it does. It failed frequently when I first saw it 46 years ago. And it still failed frequently when last I had to deal with it 3 years ago. Was it better in 2004.? Yes, a bit. Was it good enough to be a sole backup? No way. We went through five DDS tape drives in six years BTW. A pretty sorry performance any way you look at it.

      *** and while some drives (TRAVAN) are pretty awful, they make tape systems today that are extremely reliable***

      I doubt it. They make drives that vendors claim to be extremely reliable and some people believe those claims to be valid. I personally don't think the vendor measured bit-error-rates which indicate about one tape failure per geologic epoch have any real world connection with actual drive and tape cartridge failure modes or failure rates. Note that we are talking about the failure of one of those "extremely reliable" tapes.

      ***And what would you suggest?***

      What I did was find a junker PC; install Linux on the original small drive; and add a big secondary drive (the BIOS in the 486SX33 was less than pleased with the idea of booting from a many GB drive). Then I simply backed up the server to the big hard drive over the network every night.

      As a bonus, it was much easier and faster to recover files from the hard drive with cp rather than fighting with BACKUP EXEC (a truly abominable piece of software if you ask me) to get the files back from tape.

      Since the world would not have actually ended had we lost all our data I settled for using a Tape for Offsite backup. Had the data been more important, I would have shunted removable hard drives back and forth. You're right, they are a bit fragile, but they will probably last as long as a tape cartridge and they don't cost that much more. In our case, they would probably have outlasted the tape DRIVES and would have been lots cheaper to replace. Would I use them for critical data? You bet I would. Are they overkill for data you'd like to keep but could afford to lose? Possibly.

      I agree that saving more than will fit on the current biggest cheap hard drive is a problem. (It'd be even more of a mess with DVDs I should think). Maybe tape has some reasonable use if terabytes of data need to be backed up every night. But I have to tell you that the prospect of recovering terabytes of data from tape ought to make any sensible IT type really nervous.

      And I haven't even mentioned RAID arrays. That's because I don't know much about them. I'd sure as hell look into them as an alternative/supplement to tape if I had to deal with huge amounts of critical data.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  70. Archival backups with backups by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

    My corp has no (that's zero) client data retention policies. That leave lil' ol' me justifying the backups and archives for the eight years wort of client files. Here's what I have to cover my backside:

    1) Hourly disk snap shots for the fat-finger mistakes
    2) Weekly full tape bakups on a three week schedule for disaster recovery
    3) Nightly incremental tape backups to keep the weekly backups up to date
    4) Tape archive system to hold all of the old files that would otherwise be deleted after the job is finished (can't have that)
    5) Double copies of the archive tapes - Just In Case
    6) Off-site storage of all backups and duplicate archives - Just In Case
    7) Weekly test of backups BEFORE those are shipped off-site.
    8) Clause in my contract saying I can't be fired if this system fails - I really wish that were true.

    Most of this stuff was standard issue, out of the box, flip the switch and use the defaults.
    Why is this so hard for a government agency to do the same?

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
    1. Re:Archival backups with backups by RoadWarriorX · · Score: 1

      So, what you are saying is that your company DOES have data retention policies, but they are just relying on you for the definition and enforcement those technical details?

    2. Re:Archival backups with backups by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Oh, and the costs must be bourne by the local plant and any time the corporation wants to change something because someone higher up has nothing to do (special project time), I need to let someone tinker with my servers.

      And the best part is that if something goes wrong its may fault, but since there are just enough out-dated and unenforced backup "suggestions" out in the document pools, if anything goes right, someone else takes the credit.

      Still, why is this so hard ....

      Okay, I see the point.

      --
      Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  71. Tapes never made sense to me.... by CasperIV · · Score: 1

    Sure, a decade ago people needed things like zip disks and tape drives, but I don't know anyone who puts any faith in those things in todays world. Tapes rarely work for restores and the degradation times are not nearly what people claim them to be. Also, have you ever tried digging for something in a mountain of tapes?

    At my current employer we backup out databases each night to several locations. The first are a couple of terra servers (network drives) next to the server that have a few terrabytes worth of storage a piece. We also ftp the files to an off-site backup as well. The files end up getting pasted to another server as well that is used for both maintaining the backup files as well as a point for development and testing of applications on a current structure and data. Going this route is far more dependable then trusting a glorified VHS with our data (yeah yeah they are encoded and read differently).

    Besides, how many times have you opened a tape and had it bad before you even get files on it? That never served to comfort me.

    1. Re:Tapes never made sense to me.... by grub · · Score: 1


      Tapes rarely work for restores and the degradation times are not nearly what people claim them to be. Also, have you ever tried digging for something in a mountain of tapes?

      That's why tapes come with barcodes and human-readable labels. They should be stored label out, not in a "mountain". It's never been a problem and we rotate LTO2 tapes in our changer a few times a week now.

      Besides, how many times have you opened a tape and had it bad before you even get files on it?

      Never.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Tapes never made sense to me.... by CasperIV · · Score: 1

      How often do you restore backups? Do you even know if they all work? How do you verify the integrity of the archives? It's fine to know what the label on a tape says, but the problem is restoring back to the point before a corruption. It's way easier just punch in a date, have it hand me a list of backups for that date, pick the database I want to restore, and move on... and I have all the benefits without any of the trouble. But, as much of the IT world, to each his own. People have preferences and the choices are almost always more of a personal taste then any particular reason. In a few years I hope to not use any form of magnetic media and move to flash based storage for everything. Right now we have a few large flash drives, but nothing to the scale of our current magnetic media.

    3. Re:Tapes never made sense to me.... by grub · · Score: 1


      I can punch in a date and see backups for each file on our SAN and various servers. "You overwrote a file and need the version from December 14? No problem." We recover files quite often and have never had a bad tape.

      If the software needs a tape not in the jukebox it will tell us the tape #, we just have to fetch it and pop it in.

      I can't think of an easier way to juggle many dozens of terabytes.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Tapes never made sense to me.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Mirrors are nice but tape has a lot of advantages. I'm curious - what tape system are you using that gives you all the bad tapes? It's not some 4mm thing based on DAT tape is it?

  72. If they had not been able to get the data back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how much would have been lost?

    $38Bn

    therefore the file was worth $38Bn.

    Creating a new $30,000 car costs less than $10,000. the car is still worth $30,000 on the profit sheet.

  73. inject + extract by mengel · · Score: 5, Informative
    Every night before backups add a file to partitions being backed up (like '.backuptst.txt') with the date in it.

    After you run the backup, memove then restore that file, make sure it has the current date in it.

    I've had that as a feature in my backup scripts for over 10 years...

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
    1. Re:inject + extract by foursky · · Score: 0

      I personally use Netbackup to keep track of it in a catalog. Right now, My catalogs are over 900gb, from pushing about 700tb a month. Things are a bit different when you get to a large environment.

      The "Backup Disk" was probably a raid 1 set, which most likely meant that the data was kept on a desktop. Most real servers should be set for raid 5 at the least. This a$$hat should be fired for having important data on a desktop, and not periodically verifying that the data was good.

    2. Re:inject + extract by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      And what about the data and tables after the test file. Is it restorable or damaged? The recovery test process could be hardened by ensuring a file is at the end. --John

    3. Re:inject + extract by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Raid 5 is damn slow for anything that requires serious I/O rates. And if you've got a lot of drives and/or a very large array, requires a long time to rebuild if a drive fails.

      If you need redundancy and speed, RAID10 is probably the way to go.

  74. Whats your favorite off-site backup software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After this story, I guess I should stop whining about the 2 months worth of files I lost yesterday when I mentioned to our tech support guy that my computer was running super slow. I returned from a meeting to see Ghost wiping my hard drive. (Argh! I used to be the tech guy elsewhere, but now I'm busy teaching.) Apparently I missed that memo that went out 6 months before I joined stating that files should only be stored on the school file server, not locally. (And this guy was miffed because he noticed that caps lock and insert - the two keys which are the scourge of my existence -were removed from my keyboard. )

    Morals of the story.
    - Back up the day before you are expecting data loss.
    - Data loss can originate from the *strangest* places.
    - Off site backups are mandatory - even for personal work.
    - Don't assume that someone is competent just because they have a title.

    So, does anyone have a good recommendation for easy off site backup. Ideally, any file I save to my documents or a mapped drive gets uploaded to some server and archived. I'm trying OmniDrive. Flash drives are an alternative but I'd prefer something simpler (all that plugging) and harder to lose. Linux (home) and Windows (work) compatible a plus. Free is good too.

    -Jon

  75. estimated value to various mafia types by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    They probably based that number on the number of various criminal groups involved in identity theft and how much they could potentially sell the data for.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  76. Test restores? You jest. by wsanders · · Score: 1

    A real BOFH doesn't TEST, we do live restores frequently enough for our dumbass users that we don't need to test. And with a blocksize of one, maybe two if we like you.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:Test restores? You jest. by greginnj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A file restore is as different from a full system restore as an engine bench test is different from a full rocket launch.

      As an IT auditor, I do ding IT shops when they don't do full system restores (which has the dual benefits of verifying that the techs are capable, and verifying that the media is readable). I'm going to be printing out this story and showing it to people who don't do full system restores... I get along fine with BOFHs, and I can sympathize with them about the burden of SOX, but while I'm doing the audit, I don't let them slide on this.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  77. Greaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greaaat I am currently in negotiations for a contract with Alaska. 200k out of their pockets is going to make contract negotiation a little more difficult :/

  78. John Cleese: backuptrauma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The video is funny.

    http://www.backuptrauma.com/

    Though, using rsync to backup to rotating partitions works as well.

    On odd days, rsync to B1
    On even days, rsync to B2
    On odd weeks, rsync to B3
    On even weeks, rsync to B4
    On odd months, rsync to B5
    On even months, rsync to B6
    On every two odd months, rsync to R7
    On every two even months, rsync to B8
    On every odd year, rsync to B9
    On every even year, rsync to B10

    So with 10x the space, you can have easy instant access to:
    a day or two ago.
    a week or two ago.
    a month or two ago
    4 or 8 months ago.
    a year or two ago.

  79. Don't format by Acuram · · Score: 1

    There's no reason to format unless you're changing filesystems. Just install to a new directory and clean out the rest by hand if you want to. Looks like he learned this lesson the hard way.

    1. Re:Don't format by ashmon · · Score: 0

      Have you never run a windows box before? Sometimes reformatting is the only way to rid a box of adware/virii/badstuff. Heck, most Linux ppl say a reformat is warranted when you get wooted.

    2. Re:Don't format by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Quick format takes all of 5 seconds -- just writes a new blank directory structure. Erasing 85,000 files can take hours.

      Plus, Windows(tm) really wants to be installed in \WINDOWS. You can put it where ever you want, but some things still don't use %windir%, et. al. AND windows(tm) puts things outside %windir% that cannot easily be relocated -- esp. during a fresh install.

  80. Why keep paper? by PMuse · · Score: 1

    This is why people persist in storing paper in addition to electronic copies. Most people know how to assess the risks of loss/destruction of stored paper. They understand how to put a process in place that minimizes the significant risks.

    To the layman (i.e., suits), risk assessment and mitigation in electronic storage is like magic. How many management levels up do you suppose the first guy was who said, "How could something like this just happen?" Two levels? One? Zero?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  81. bofh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another job well done by the Bastard Operator From Hell and his trusty bulk eraser.

  82. Makes me ponder.. by RoadWarriorX · · Score: 1

    With Google having many, many terrabytes of data, do they even bother doing backups? Practically speaking, could clusters of redundant servers with large hard drives be a faster, better, more cost-effective solution in lieu of the clunky, time-consuming backup tapes in the long run? It just fascinates me that as the amount of total storage increases, backup tapes seems less and less as practical. What do you think?

    1. Re:Makes me ponder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on GFS (google file system) Basically googles hard drive is super redundant and its spread across the network.. so it's basically like what you're saying

    2. Re:Makes me ponder.. by Varun+Soundararajan · · Score: 1

      At any point of time, there are at least 40-50 copies of every byte of data on GFS and at least around 10 copies are expected not to retrieve properly as they run on cheap hardware.. -- Numbers off my head.. correct me if I m wrong.

  83. I used to do tech support for backup software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi All

    I used to do tech support for backup software (ARCserve).
    The stories I could tell you about people's bad day's when they did not think
    through their backup plans, not to mention the problems CA introduced to ARCserve itself.

    I talked with one lady who overwrote her live Lotus Notes database with the backup when she thought she
    had restored it to another location. She had not read the page on how to restore it to another location. Once we figured this out, her response was "I think I can resign with dignity".

    Another customer had a nice hot-swap RAID array with the nice monitor that shows the drives
    stripes. He loved to shows guests how the hot swap worked. He did so at least every other week (yes, this is a bad thing to do). So one day when he decided to show off the array again, the whole thing went down. Well, he thought, I will just restore from backup. Oh wait he never tested his backups. Look
    all he ever backed up was 50 meg out of the 60 Gig RAID array (circa 1997). Once he figured this out all he could say was "I'm fired, I'm fired".

    Yup, managment always thinks backups are expensive until they loose thier data.

  84. $38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ah, but we don't know the actual cost. Thirty eight billion is a lot of money. Suppose I wanted to skim some of that money, but I knew that the documentation existed in paper and computerized form. Perhaps I know someone in the records department who can shuffle some papers, but then the computerized records won't match. Oops, now those records are gone and we have no choice but to scan in the documents that I have changed, now everything agrees and there is no record of where that extra million or ten went.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      This was the first thing I thought, when I read the article. Come on, you can recover data from hard disks, which are half burned. A simply formatted hard disk and the data is permanently and unrecoverably gone? Ridiculous.

    2. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by iocat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      They hired Dell and Microsoft to do the recover. Why not drivesavers or some other reputable firm that doesn't just run Norton but looks at the physical bits on the disc.

      Anyway, what DIDN'T shock me about this story is that after formatting the main disk, the tech immediately (and blissfully) formatted the backup as well. I've seen stuff like that happen like ten times. ("Oh, well, after I replaced the drive, I figured I should replace the backup tapes too, so we could have a fresh start, so I threw them out." or "I figured I should make a backup right away, so I over-wrote the good backup with the new, bad, data.") I don't want to blame the victim, but sometimes it's like the data wants to be destroyed at that point. My favorite was when someone added a second drive to an important source control server to do nightly drive to drive back-ups. Then, they stopped doing tape backups nightly and switched to weekly. Then, they forgot they disconnected a fan during the HDD installation (or it was accidently disconnected -- it remains a debated point), then the server fried itself and the drives. Then everyone lost a day of work rebuilding the source archive based on their local data. Good times.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    3. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear deeply respected and trusted Sir,

        I trust by the grace of almighty god you are in good health this fine and beautiful day. I was a data entry clerk for the Alaska Department of Revenue, Prior to being fired, I secured access to a hidden fund worth $38,000,000,000 (THIRTY-EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS).

        If I ever tried to utilise this fund in my name, the funds would risk being confiscated by the government, so I would like you assistance to find a trustworth foreign assistant who can invest these funds.

        This proposal is 100% risk free, and I can offer you a 10% fee for your help.....

    4. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Alaska? Wasn't that the state that was supposed to get the bridge to nowhere?

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    5. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by wyverspur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here's a thought....Why the hell is critical information stored on a smegging desktop/laptop? IMAO they got what they deserved.

      NO critical information like that should ever be anywhere except on a properly backed up network drive, preferably with a document versioning system to track changes.

      As I work for a government institution, I keep no less than three copies of data, one of which is offsite

      (Just my 2cents)

    6. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Unpossible, that's what SOX exists to prevent!

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    7. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and now...
      http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/stevens-north- pole/
      Now the trick, of course, is that the amount allocated is too small for the amount of track being built.
      Multiplying that figure by a factor of 10 probably approaches what the final cost will be.

    8. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by meme_police · · Score: 1

      So the paper is worth the same then. And I don't see many articles claiming that a lost box of papers is worth $38 kazillion.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

    9. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      My account number is 27

      -Charles Montgomery Burns

    10. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by elhaf · · Score: 1

      There's an old saw that triple-redundant systems are useless, because once the first and second system fails, the third will fail and for the same reason. I guess this story proves that wrong, because it was the third (hardcopy) that saved their bacon.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    11. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      Though they certainly are not metropolises, neither Delta Junction nor North Pole are villages.

      More importantly, 8 miles away from Delta Junction is Ft. Greely, home of the Missile Defense System, an army cold-weather testing site (The Stryker armored vehicles are a notable graduate), and has a number of Oil Pipeline stations. If the Gas pipeline ever happens, Delta Junction is also on the proposed route.
      Before you reach North Pole, you drive past Eilson Air Force Base, which is a major AFB for all of Alaska.
      Both places are also already very hot tourist destinations and the extended railway would bring in even more income.

      Neat link you have there, though. In stead of Think Progress they should Think before they post 'news'.

    12. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by ronanbear · · Score: 1

      Actually paper was 4th redundant system.

      The hard drive and back-up were erased. The off side tape was the 3rd back-up.

      I don't know if the paper was envisaged as an original backup or an archive. I imagine they just didn't feel comfortable shredding the documents. Re-scaning came after trying to recover the electronic copies.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    13. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by couch_potato · · Score: 1

      I read the article on Think Progress, and looking at the comments, I have to wonder (as I always do about these things) if all of these people crying for the wilderness in Alaska realize how gosh darn much of it there is. For crying out loud, you could split Alaska in half and make Texas the third largest state. The vast majority of that land is wilderness. A little bit here and there isn't going to make any sort of noticeable difference. And in 50 years the whole state will be paved, after everyone has been forced to move away from the coasts due to flooding, and the lower latitudes are all 140 degrees(global warming, yay!), so the whole point is moot.

      Cool links.

    14. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by clnelson · · Score: 1

      Not really. All we're talking about here are applications for payment -- and the payment is a set amount. So all you could really do is try and trick the system into mailing you multiple checks. Or perhaps substituting your bank account for a number of applicants. In either case I don't think you'd be very successful.

      This story is more hype that anything else.

    15. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      I would estimate that 100% of the people who posted that story and commented on it are not in/from/near Alaska because they all demonstrate terrible ignorance about Alaska, and the only guy that does have something to do with Alaska is the one labeled "corrupt politician" who has somehow been re-elected six times by Alaskans (obviously for being insane and building things that go to various nowheres!).

      Alaska is huge, our biggest city is a small town in any other state, the moose ignore the non-intrusive oil pipeline, the oil companies drive their supplies in on roads made of ice that leave no traces behind when summer hits.
      Youre right, its not as bad as activists in the lower-48 make it sound.

    16. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by arhhook · · Score: 1

      I've run into a company that had a HD fail with approximately $2 million in information/account information lost. We simply called up http://www.drivesavers.com/ and they were able to recover it within a few days for under $2,000.

      DriveSavers or even slave it and buy a license and use ZeroAssumption Recovery or something. I think they overshot the solution and made way more work for themselves at a way higher cost.

      captcha: expert

    17. Re:$38 Billion is a big incentive for fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal version of this.. I did a reinstall for someone. It went like this:
                "This will erase everything on your hard drive. Do you have everything you need copied off here? I can help if you need."
                "Yes."

                "Are you sure?"
                "Yes."

                "OK, last chance... once I hit 'return', that's it."
                "Yes I have my files."

                (less than a minute later)

                  "Oh is it too late? I forgot to save my files!"

      I can't make stuff like that up 8-).

  85. Easy recovery by flapdoddle · · Score: 0

    didn't I just see DJ_hacK0rZ on the AOL IRC offer up this same database for $200, or $2000 if it includes credit card *and* social security numbers?

  86. Hum... I feel a set up by mcwalter44 · · Score: 1

    I can see Apple using this case in Alaska for blitzing use with Time Machine adds for OS X 10.5. You know it will be the PC guy in a parka or some type Eskimo gear talking about losing some thing important and the Mac guy in a ratty tee shirt laughing at him ask why can't he just have his computer travel back in time to retrieve the file like he's Marty McFly or John Tutor.

  87. Spartan Boxes by JoelMartinez · · Score: 1

    "... And all will know that 300 boxes gave their last breath to recover it"

  88. Re:I could be a douche and say it has never happen by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Truer words haven't been said.

  89. Perspective by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    $38 billion is a lot of money. To put that in perspective, for $38 billion, Alaska could build over fifty bridges to nowhere.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Perspective by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      $38 billion is a lot of money. To put that in perspective, for $38 billion, Alaska could build over fifty bridges to nowhere.

      It wasn't to nowhere, it was to help Dept. of Homeland Security look for Bin Laden and OJ's killer in the woods.

  90. Not the only set-up I've seen like that by guruevi · · Score: 1

    I used to work at a company that did it's own advertising, they had the catalog and all data for the advertising (pictures of models, the full finished running catalog, the full catalog everybody was working on, the financial data to calculate prices for each catalog), was standing in the middle of a department desk, near the entrance, around 12 disks varying from 80G -> 250G (they bought the largest available for each year, so the 80G has been there for 3 years) daisy chained with FireWire to a single PowerMac G4. No backups whatsoever, just copied the data from one disk to another every night, but only for 2 or 3 older disks.

    I could buy stock in their competitors, come into their office right before the catalogs have to be printed (1-2 months before the beginning of fashion season), either steal (nobody would notice, they make too much noise for anyone to sit close by) or destroy the disks (they smoke up if you slightly force the power adapter in at a 45 degree angle) and wait for them to go out of business and my stock to rise.

    The data on that is worth millions if not billions, almost $500 million per year in sales alone.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  91. Another disaster story by ortholattice · · Score: 1

    Mid 90s. A nameless mid-sized ($100 million) company (were I was a short-term contractor) kept all corporate data in a ERP system, from accounting to customer orders and inventory. They had a RAID-5 disk configuration, and faithfully backed up the system nightly with carefully planned tape rotations. The RAID-5 controller failed in a way that destroyed all data unretrievably. Turns out the backup tape had been running off the end for months, but the tape operator ignored the cryptic error message. It was a MAJOR disaster that almost wiped out the company.

  92. Call Guinness!! by FernandoBR · · Score: 0

    It surely is some kind of world record...

    --
    -x- Sorry my bad English. I'll have him tarred and feathered. -x-
  93. ObSnark by cgreuter · · Score: 1

    "Everybody felt very bad about it and we all learned a lesson. There was no witch hunt," Corbus said.

    Translation: "We were going to fire the technician but then he produced printouts of his written orders and of management's assurances that the current backup scheme was adequate."

    1. Re:ObSnark by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      I bet he backed those up on a disk that he locked in a vault at home!

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  94. all too familiar by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of my first day on the job a long, long time ago. I wanted to copy the contents of a floppy disk to the hard drive on an HP minicomputer. Unfortunatly, the HP "Copy" command really meant "Replace", so the entire computer hard drive was reformatted as a 5 1/4" floppy.

  95. 45k/yr job ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or x millions in bribe for 'accidents'?

    Tough choice.

  96. Why were the tapes unreadable? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the story should be $38billion lost because someone forgot 'mt -f /dev/st0 setblk 0'.

  97. Correct the procedures by Gription · · Score: 1

    We deal with drives from hundreds of customer offices where we provide thousands of computers for free. A very simple policy makes something like this data loss exceedingly unlikely. We don't take the drive from any computer and reuse it straight away EVER.

    The process for every drive that comes in is to label it with:
    * The customer's name
    * The model of computer (in case we need to boot it)
    * The OS (in case we have to attempt recovery)
    * The date received

    The drives are stored in a secure area and we don't reuse a drive until it has "ripened" for at least 45 days. Drives that are reused are wiped then reimaged. Drives that aren't going to be reused because they are damaged or because they are too small, are destroyed after 6 months with a welder's slag hammer.

    (Also you can remove the magnets from the drives and use them to hang things in your cube!)

  98. Yet, it does fit the OP requirements.. by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    Gods above man.. the OP asked for feedback when 2-3 became available.

    I pointed out 6TB exists today!

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  99. two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kroll Ontrack

  100. Ob Humor by rlp · · Score: 1

    Nine months worth of information concerning the yearly payout from the Alaska Permanent Fund was gone

    In state that was formerly Tsarist Russia, state government pays you!

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  101. am I the only one who's done it? by boethius · · Score: 1

    ... one time we had a hugely corrupted SQL Server database and I had no good backups.

    I had one backup that wasn't that old (a day maybe) but ended up accidentally deleting it when I was trying to setup a system to recover the data... don't ask.

    It was a nightmare... an all-nighter but still no DB (this was the entire corporation's PeopleSoft financials DB so all accounting was shutdown on Monday morning), consultants flown in from afar, the works.

    Closest backup was 4 days old. The company wrote off the time lost to re-enter all the accounting data. All told it was probably about $25,000 of lost time/labor.

    I walked with my head down for about a month. The PeopleSoft programmers brutalized me behind my back. Ah, what fun. Call me crazy but I've been overly paranoid about backups ever since.

  102. A few TB? Bah. A rounding error. by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Some little dinky departmental servers can get by with NAS and/or FTP backup. But when you need to backup a few TB every single night, FTP starts to become very rediculous, very quickly.

    Yes, for low-end backup of relatively small amounts of data, tape makes no sense. Quality drives cost a fortune, and keeping track of what is on which tape is a real pain for just a few total TB.

    But for many users of modern tape, a backup solution with a total capacity of just few TB is a mere rounding error. Heck, modern tapes can usually store 1.5 to 2 TB per tape. (Depends on compressiblity, which is done by the drive itself.) It is not uncommon to see a libary full of a few dozen drives and several hundred of those tapes. (This bloat is largely due to expanded archival requirements, and the current regulatory environment.)

    And yes, tape is quite reliable, and has been reliable for decades. Yeah, if you try and archive on some consumer-quality QIC/Travan floppy-tape piece of crap, you are gonna lose data. (This is why nobody sells tape drives to consumers anymore.) But enterprise tape is a different animal altogether, and is far more reliable long-term than hard drives. (Especially for off-site long-term archival.) I have customers that still read reel-to-reel tapes, even today.

    SirWired

  103. Good thing they had the paper backup by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    People wonder why banks etc. are required by law to keep paper copies of transactions securely stored for years. This is why. Similar debate as to paper record for voting machines....

  104. FIRED by mabu · · Score: 1

    If guy who touched the computer didn't get fired, then it's a true crime. He should have to pay the $200k too.

    1. Re:FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are an idiot.

      I won't even go into the all the reasons.

  105. Contradictory description by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As several have pointed out before, if they spent $200,000 fixing the mistake, it wasn't a file worth $38 billion, it was a file worth $200,000. An essential file is exactly worth what it costs to replace it.

    This is not a pedantic point. This a catastrophic failure of people's ability to understand the magnitude of numbers. How can a contradiction of this magnitude make front page without anybody realizing its absurdity? 38 000 000 000 / 200 000 = 190 000. This story is like saying to your boss, "I accidentally destroyed a piece of our inventory worth $190,000, but don't worry, 'cause I walked across the street and bought an identical replacement from a vending machine for one dollar." If your sense of magnitude is properly callibrated, this story should become 190,000 times less interesting when you realize this mistake. The worthiness of this story should shift from being a footnote in a highschool newspaper about someone stealing a dollar from a locker to a New York Times story about a CEO fleeing the country with his company's retirement fund. This is the difference between a guy getting stabbed in midtown Manhattan and a small city getting flooded with nerve gas. And yet, no distinction is made. 38 billion and 200 thousand are, after all, pretty much the same number -- it's just that one has a few more zeroes for your eyes to skip over.

    To put it as nicely as possible: You are all fools, and your innumeracy will be the downfall of civilization.

  106. Re:I could be a douche and say it has never happen by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 1

    Though I do agree with you, I'd say the bigger debate would be whether or not CEO x or CEO y in fact fucked up in the first place. Same with a possible sacrificial lamb of an IT person.

  107. It takes us 5 min max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my home country, most people spend only 5 min to file the tax returns (fill the form) and receive the refund in less than 2 weeks.
    Log in to your online bank, select the proper link to local "IRS", make sure the numbers are OK on the form, approve some realestate loan info (prepared by the bank and ready to use) and you are done! No W-whateverforms and other BS I had to deal with in US.

    Welcome to Estonia!

    PS! Do you even have to pay taxes in US? I think not!

  108. I literally heard a guy do this before by jerryodom · · Score: 1

    A DMB I worked with a few years back was trying some sort of fancy trick working on the production database. Well he did something wrong then realized he did it wrong and all you could here was "fuuuuuuuuuuuck". The poor guy was beet red and shaking when I walked over. Couldn't get the development database to work for the production. Couldn't get the backups to come up. I think he stayed up for like 2 days. In the end we ended up replicating the original installation. I have no idea why the development setup wouldn't go over. The company owner put some absurd price tag on the amount of money he thought it cost him. Something like $250,000. I thought that was strange since all he lost was stats that were never used.

    --
    For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
  109. Sounds like they used... by infestedsenses · · Score: 1
  110. Ummm,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, you can just send the hard drive to a data recovery center and let the Pros handle it. It may cost a couple grand, but when weighing that with $38 bazillion dallars, the cost seems overwhelmingly acceptable.

  111. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    What a great time to pick up your copy of the Hichhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and figure out where to relocate!

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  112. Re:Perspective (OJ correction) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Correction: should be OJ's wife's killer, not OJ's killer. Sorry.

  113. Time out! by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    I think this guy gets 2 days time out in the low oxygen server room.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  114. Ought to get a Medal of Freedom for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all Paul Bremer was awarded one after having only lost $12 Billion

  115. Irony at its best (worst) by fractalboy · · Score: 1

    True story. Sadly. So one day whilst I was an undergrad computer science student, the department sysadmin decided it would be a good day to back up the student directories. There wasn't enough free space on the hard drive, so he decided to clear some up. He found some random file that seemed to be a good candidate for deletion, as it was a) rather large and b) he couldn't quite figure out what it really was. So he canned it. And then when he went to copy the student directories.... oops! Where did they go? It just so happens that this "mystery" file was actually the student directories. Needless to say, much irritation ensued. I suppose it is one thing to lose all of your department's students' files, and its another thing to lose them all while trying to back them up, but to do so by intentionally deleting them without knowing what they were. That, my friends, takes a very, very special sysadmin.

  116. They had the very worst money can buy. by twitter · · Score: 1

    routine maintenance work, ... mistakenly reformatted the backup drive, as well. ... Over the next few days, as the department, the division and consultants from Microsoft Corp. and Dell Inc. labored to retrieve the data, it became obvious the worst-case scenario was at hand.

    With "routine" reformatting, you know the system in question was the very best Dell and M$ can provide. I've never lost a file since going to gnu/Linux. Never, and that includes the survivors transferred from the Windoze word dating back to 1989. These jokers managed to lose a file in less than a year because they had to do a "routine" reformat of a machine.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:They had the very worst money can buy. by dedazo · · Score: 1

      you know the system in question was the very best Dell and M$ can provide.

      Do you?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  117. A rational thought: Dell/M$ Suck! by twitter · · Score: 1

    Typical thoughts, if you can have them over the rushing sound in your ears are, "My career is over," and "I hate Microsoft/Dell." If his boss made him use the system as is, he's hating his boss too but both of them are going to be scapegoated by billion dollar companies.

    The root cause of the accident was system instability. The article talks about "routine" reformatting. No stable system needs a routine reformat. Storing the data onto another partition may have helped, but that's just a mitigation strategy for a situation that should never have happened. It's possible they had put their trust and data into a hardware RAID they did not and could not understand. Finally, the tape backup should have been a sufficient mitigating strategy but was not. Blame for that can only be laid at the feet of the people who sold the system and said that it worked. You have to wonder if Dell/M$ picked up the tab for this or if they charged consulting time for the failure of their systems.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  118. Owning up to mistakes. by twitter · · Score: 1

    It was not the tech's fault, unless you believe reformatting is routine. The system failed the tech as did a reasonable mitigation strategy. They thought they had the data in three places, but it was not in any.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  119. Ugh, they used it to make more money! by twitter · · Score: 1

    I should have guessed it.

    The department is asking lawmakers to approve a supplemental budget request for $220,700 (165,900) to cover the excess costs incurred during the six-week recovery effort, including about $128,400 (96,500) in overtime and $71,800 (54,000) for computer consultants.

    So, M$/Dell made $71,800 on their systems failure that had already cost the people of Alaska $150,000. I wonder how many minutes of overtime Bill Gates himself charged.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  120. Worth billions... how? by JavaRob · · Score: 1

    I confess I didn't RTFA, but this seemed pretty clear in the writeup -- the data loss was NOT in the billions.

    "Using the 300 cardboard boxes containing all the information, staff worked overtime for several months to rescan everything at an additional cost of $200,000."

    I.e., the loss cost them 200K. And a huge headache, of course, but how much Advil did they have to buy to cost billions?

  121. That is truly by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    UFB.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  122. Tape anecdotes by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I don't go through a very large volume of LTO2 tapes but I have had a few I can't read - most likely from the same source. IBM3480,3490,3590 tapes of a wide range of vintages have been OK. I've had only a couple of problems with a lot of 8mm cartridges and still managed to get the data in the worst case (three days to read a tape!). Various types of DLT tapes have had problems, including SDLT tapes that are DOA - can't even write to them once. Another company reads in the reels of 20+ year old stuff for me so I don't know what happens there but I think it requires treating the tapes before reading.

  123. Re:I could be a douche and say it has never happen by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    As the leader, you are responsible for everything that happens below you. That is why you get paid so much, right? Of it it just the pretty face?

    Seriously, that's what's wrong with corporate America (well, the world). I happen to be a professional engineer. I run a small company (a corporation). Because I am a licenced professional, the corporation does nothing to shield me from liability if something goes wrong with my designs. If one of my employees screws up and it goes out the door, it's my fault. I go to jail and/or get sued if someone dies. Personal responsibility. I don't care where you are in te chain of command, when somebody underneath you fucks up, it's your fault. If the fuck up happened four layers below you, then there are four fuckups in the chain, but you're still to blame. Even if you never met the IT peon who made the error, you hired the guy who hired the guy who hired the guy who screwed up.

    If boards and CxOs were held accountable for all the really big screwups, they'd be a little more concerned about the organization and a little less about maintaining that single digit handicap.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  124. As Punishment.... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    They should publicly flog this person. Either that or have him hear Kas's reason as to why the PS3 costs $600...

    _____
    "If I wanted to hear this recording, I would have pressed a button to hear it!"

  125. How stupid is this: pay for recovery? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    It would have cost *far* less if they'd paid for an unformat - what's the worst case, $10k?

              mark

  126. Tape Sucks by SuddenDisruption · · Score: 1

    It's amazing anyone still using it.

    http://www.high-rely.com/index.cfm?action=article

    Sudden Disruption
    --
    Sudden View...
            the radical option for editing text
    http://www.sudden.net/
    http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/