Agreed, cloud backup is a really nice secondary backup in a lot of ways, particularly because it often gives you fine-grained versioning, and satisfies the "backups should be offsite" requirement.
Go with www.crashplan.com (using their "PROe"), and you can be your own cloud, and host "online backups" at another location.
One, LTO3 read speeds are around 80MB/sec, which is not awful.
Second, when youre picking an archival method, "time to recover" should be really really low on the priority list unless youre talking "multi-day". For 60GB of data, even LTO1 (which is 1/4 the speed of LTO3) could perform a full backup or restore in 60,000 / 20MBps = 3,000s, or 50 minutes.
Seems to me that far more important than whether it takes an extra 5 minutes to restore, is whether your data is actually restorable.
I was not intending to endorse drobo, and if it came across that way I retract it. Aside from having no experience with them, devices with "magical new methods" of doing things with little documentation make me nervous. Nervous for one because "if it dies, can I load up a linux distro and read the data off of the disks?"
Er, if you want answers, all you have to do is google the question being answered, and click thru from google, then scroll all the way to the bottom. By Google's TOS, you cannot present different information to the google search engine than you present to someone coming from Google, so its not even likely to be blocked, nor do I feel bad about it-- it is the price of being indexed on Google.
I mean, they can present ads that try to make you feel bad, and make it obnoxious to get to the info, but if anyone is being shady here it is a website trying to find loopholes in Google's TOS.
Seconding the crashplan suggestion. It is essentially a "roll your own cloud backup" solution that supports versioning, encryption, and automatic verification. Ive used it at several clients, and it has been the least problematic backup system Ive ever used-- with virtually no maintenance it has quickly resolved several dataloss scenarios.
If price/capacity is your aim with LTO, you would go with LTO4-- its much cheaper on the drive front, and about 1/3 the price on the tape end for 1/2 the capacity. For $25 on LTO4, you can store ~1.4-1.6 TB. Good luck beating that with hard drives.
They are also easier to encrypt than tapes and offer a much higher rate of reuse.
LTO4 has native encryption support; failing that you can simply encrypt your data on the way to the tape drive (backupexec supports it, and i imagine it wouldnt be too hard to gzip w/encryption the data on the way to the drive). As for reuse, LTO tapes are rated for 5000 loads/unloads; SATA connectors are rated for 50 connects/disconnects.
Not sure about USB durability, but when you go to external usb drives you can run into issues with drives being bumped during operation.
Doesnt change the humor of the suggestions flying around. For archival purposes, online is brain-dead; the whole point of offline archiving is that it doesnt spontaneously wear out or die or get hit by a surge while its holding your valuable data.
The OPs post was practically begging for someone to say "use tape".
I cant believe my ears. Someone is asking for advice on archival media, have suggested that tape is an option and price is not a big factor, and the response is "yea, you should buy less reliable, more expensive rotational media".
Why on EARTH wouldnt he pick up a cheap LTO3 drive (which can be had for $200 these days), grab a couple $20 tapes (holding ~300GB), and call it a day? Theres your multiple copies, LTO supports WORM tech, and youre basically guarenteed that you will be able to read the tapes for the next 10 years or so (read-ability is guarenteed 2 generations back in LTO, so LTO5 drives can handle LTO3 media).
Hard drives just are not generally convenient to have multiple media sets (unless you want to find a hot-swap bay and a zillion drive cages), theyre prone to disaster, SATA connectors REALLY arent meant for rotation (theyre rated for 50 insertions per connector...), they have motors and bearings that can wear out, etc, and at the end of the day are more expensive.
Think of it this way-- once youve bit the cost of the tape drive, cost wise you can afford 3 tapes for every single drive. So if your data is really valuable, take into consideration the number of backups you can feasibly afford on tape vs spinning platter.
One of those civic virtues being a sense of glee at watching big corporations (not all of them faceless entities, either) getting the crap hacked out of them, and tons of customer records spilled out for the world to see?
You can go anywhere that there are windows clients (airports are great candidates), and you'll see all kinds of friggin' ARP broadcasts from machines that KNOW they are on an untrusted network. WHY?
FTFY. And yea, those broadcasts are really an indicator of terrible security.
Its colder in the winter because the sun is less of an issue anyways-- so heat gains wouldnt be that major. Further, its a lot more efficient to heat a house (just release energy!) than it is to cool a house.
Theyre also arguing that since driving isnt a right, its a privelege (which by all indicators seems to be true), you dont need to be proven guilty for them to revoke your license.
Commentary on this point by a lawyer would be edifying.
Err... No. [wikipedia.org] Even Wikipedia (never a reliable source at the best of times and despite vigorous editing by various apologists),
Congrats, you just linked to various surveys of wildly varying accuracy, which talk about TOTAL casualties, as opposed to civilian. Iraq Body Count is an ancient website which I dont believe has ever been accused of being "too conservative", and is the source for that wikipedia quote. If you prefer, here is a direct link. Incidentally, in that VERY link you provided, Wikileaks (again, not a site that is ever accused of being pro-US) shows a number of 94,000 civilian deaths between 2004 and 2009, which squares with the 99k-108k (over slightly longer period) that I cited.
The credit for all war casualties is ultimately at the door of whomever started the war.
Congratulations, you just gave open invitation for insurgencies to start wholesale slaughter of civilian populations, knowing that ultimately they are our fault. Thats NOT how war-crimes work, and your sense of right and wrong are seriously twisted.
That is also why all casualties in Iraq are hanging around the neck of the "coalition of the willing" and its chief warmonger - USA - in particular.
So what do you say to the members of the Iraqi interim government as they continue to battle what are essentially insurgents, that because fighting has been continuous since the war started, that it is OUR fault and they need to direct their aggression at the US? Thats brilliant, considering the aid in combatting insurgents we're given. Im sure they would agree completely.
Your claim was that Iraq casualties were, quote: "far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of" (emphasis mine).
No, if you had quoted honestly you would have included this part: CIVILIAN CASUALTIESfar far far lower than in any prior war (more honest emphasis mine), and while we're digging up prior posts YOUR claim is that there were some 800k civilian casualties in Iraq which is roughly 10x higher than either Wikileaks or IraqBodyCount indicate, and is by all measures much higher than even the combined total of civilian and military deaths over the last decade.
I pointed out several cases off the top of my head,
And completely disregarded the fact that you havent given clear figures showing substantial coalition-caused civilian casualties. I suppose if you want to throw the blame for ALL casualties on our side, then by your changing of the rules you win by fiat.
I will admit that I should not have said "All". But on double-checking my facts by a quick google ("revolutionary war civilian casualty count"), first hit pulled up this page, a collection of stats from various wars from the revolution till now (with sources); and it seems that there WAS one war with lower civilian casualties-- the first Iraq war. All others with figures on civilian dead show an astonishingly higher number of dead.
Youre unfortunately mistaken, practically speaking. Not being a legal scholar nor a justice, what you or I think of the constitution does not have the weight of the law. If the Supreme Court disgregards what we think the constitution says, our recourse is to change how we vote (we vote for the people who select and confirm the justices).
Calling them all "corrupt" is a bit of a stretch, incidentally. Some of them may not agree with your or my interpretation, but thats quite a bit different than corrupt.
Committing troops to war without a congressional vote on war is unconstitutional
Good thing we secured such a vote in both Iraq and Afghanistan (a whopping week after 9/11, i might add) prior to committing our troops then-- unlike, incidentally, Obama in Libya.
Opening your post with such blatant misinformation really does wonders for your credibility, you know.
Iraq affair alone had around a million of civilian casualties by various credible estimates,
Thats quite a claim. Lets see whether it holds up Wikipedia says (citing Iraq Body Count) that up to 12/2010, civilian casualties are between 99,000 and 108,000-- a combined total from insurgency, coalition, and US forces. If you look at the figures from Afghanistan, we see that about 75% of the casualties THERE were caused by "anti-government elements"; so if we extrapolate from Afghanistan to Iraq (not unreasonable IMO, unless you have more accurate figures), then we have a whopping 25,000 civilian casualties, over nearly 10 years, in a war where the enemy intentionally blends itself into the population.
This isnt exactly what I call war-crime material. Again, acquaint yourself with former wars-- we're doing way better than the historical record.
a typical conflict in the 19th century had less then 100,000 casualties on both sides, vast majority of them soldiers.
Which war are you referring to, and how long did it last? Antietam hit nearly 23,000 in a day, IIRC. And comparing a war from the 21st century to a 19th century war is disingenuous in the extreme; why are you discounting the 20th century wars (vietnam, WW2, WW1, etc)?
Microsoft has the salt, so they will be able to check certain passwords. Hash 123456, salt it, compare with the table.
The point of salt isnt to make the hashes impossible to do lookups on (otherwise you couldnt do logins), its to make existing rainbow tables worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, cloud backup is a really nice secondary backup in a lot of ways, particularly because it often gives you fine-grained versioning, and satisfies the "backups should be offsite" requirement.
Go with www.crashplan.com (using their "PROe"), and you can be your own cloud, and host "online backups" at another location.
2 things.
One, LTO3 read speeds are around 80MB/sec, which is not awful.
Second, when youre picking an archival method, "time to recover" should be really really low on the priority list unless youre talking "multi-day". For 60GB of data, even LTO1 (which is 1/4 the speed of LTO3) could perform a full backup or restore in 60,000 / 20MBps = 3,000s, or 50 minutes.
Seems to me that far more important than whether it takes an extra 5 minutes to restore, is whether your data is actually restorable.
Look on ebay, get one used. Even brand new theyre only about $900, and you can do far far cheaper for the older tech.
And I meant to suggest LTO2, since that is even cheaper, and still adequately supports OPs requirements.
I was not intending to endorse drobo, and if it came across that way I retract it. Aside from having no experience with them, devices with "magical new methods" of doing things with little documentation make me nervous. Nervous for one because "if it dies, can I load up a linux distro and read the data off of the disks?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=photos
Thats odd, that doesnt point to picasa at all!
http://www.google.com/search?q=social+networking
wait a sec, wikipedia isnt a google product.... whats going on here?
http://www.google.com/search?q=email
Wait a second, the top result is a sponsored ad, which DOESNT point to gmail!
Is it possible that youre just utterly wrong?
Er, if you want answers, all you have to do is google the question being answered, and click thru from google, then scroll all the way to the bottom. By Google's TOS, you cannot present different information to the google search engine than you present to someone coming from Google, so its not even likely to be blocked, nor do I feel bad about it-- it is the price of being indexed on Google.
I mean, they can present ads that try to make you feel bad, and make it obnoxious to get to the info, but if anyone is being shady here it is a website trying to find loopholes in Google's TOS.
Seconding the crashplan suggestion. It is essentially a "roll your own cloud backup" solution that supports versioning, encryption, and automatic verification. Ive used it at several clients, and it has been the least problematic backup system Ive ever used-- with virtually no maintenance it has quickly resolved several dataloss scenarios.
If price/capacity is your aim with LTO, you would go with LTO4-- its much cheaper on the drive front, and about 1/3 the price on the tape end for 1/2 the capacity. For $25 on LTO4, you can store ~1.4-1.6 TB. Good luck beating that with hard drives.
They are also easier to encrypt than tapes and offer a much higher rate of reuse.
LTO4 has native encryption support; failing that you can simply encrypt your data on the way to the tape drive (backupexec supports it, and i imagine it wouldnt be too hard to gzip w/encryption the data on the way to the drive). As for reuse, LTO tapes are rated for 5000 loads/unloads; SATA connectors are rated for 50 connects/disconnects.
Not sure about USB durability, but when you go to external usb drives you can run into issues with drives being bumped during operation.
Doesnt change the humor of the suggestions flying around. For archival purposes, online is brain-dead; the whole point of offline archiving is that it doesnt spontaneously wear out or die or get hit by a surge while its holding your valuable data.
The OPs post was practically begging for someone to say "use tape".
I cant believe my ears. Someone is asking for advice on archival media, have suggested that tape is an option and price is not a big factor, and the response is "yea, you should buy less reliable, more expensive rotational media".
Why on EARTH wouldnt he pick up a cheap LTO3 drive (which can be had for $200 these days), grab a couple $20 tapes (holding ~300GB), and call it a day? Theres your multiple copies, LTO supports WORM tech, and youre basically guarenteed that you will be able to read the tapes for the next 10 years or so (read-ability is guarenteed 2 generations back in LTO, so LTO5 drives can handle LTO3 media).
Hard drives just are not generally convenient to have multiple media sets (unless you want to find a hot-swap bay and a zillion drive cages), theyre prone to disaster, SATA connectors REALLY arent meant for rotation (theyre rated for 50 insertions per connector...), they have motors and bearings that can wear out, etc, and at the end of the day are more expensive.
Think of it this way-- once youve bit the cost of the tape drive, cost wise you can afford 3 tapes for every single drive. So if your data is really valuable, take into consideration the number of backups you can feasibly afford on tape vs spinning platter.
One of those civic virtues being a sense of glee at watching big corporations (not all of them faceless entities, either) getting the crap hacked out of them, and tons of customer records spilled out for the world to see?
Yea, thats virtue all right.
And then released all of the Sony's customer data just to make really really sure that....
wait why did they release some 80million customer records, again?
For those who had forgotten, LulzSec is also responsible for hacking such monsters as Nintendo, Sega, and Eve Online.
So while there is a kind of poetic justice to NotW getting hacked, forgive me if Im still anticipating LulzSec getting "vanned".
You can go anywhere that there are windows clients (airports are great candidates), and you'll see all kinds of friggin' ARP broadcasts from machines that KNOW they are on an untrusted network. WHY?
FTFY. And yea, those broadcasts are really an indicator of terrible security.
Was your post an attempt at irony?
Its colder in the winter because the sun is less of an issue anyways-- so heat gains wouldnt be that major. Further, its a lot more efficient to heat a house (just release energy!) than it is to cool a house.
Theyre also arguing that since driving isnt a right, its a privelege (which by all indicators seems to be true), you dont need to be proven guilty for them to revoke your license.
Commentary on this point by a lawyer would be edifying.
Err ... No. [wikipedia.org] Even Wikipedia (never a reliable source at the best of times and despite vigorous editing by various apologists),
Congrats, you just linked to various surveys of wildly varying accuracy, which talk about TOTAL casualties, as opposed to civilian. Iraq Body Count is an ancient website which I dont believe has ever been accused of being "too conservative", and is the source for that wikipedia quote. If you prefer, here is a direct link. Incidentally, in that VERY link you provided, Wikileaks (again, not a site that is ever accused of being pro-US) shows a number of 94,000 civilian deaths between 2004 and 2009, which squares with the 99k-108k (over slightly longer period) that I cited.
The credit for all war casualties is ultimately at the door of whomever started the war.
Congratulations, you just gave open invitation for insurgencies to start wholesale slaughter of civilian populations, knowing that ultimately they are our fault. Thats NOT how war-crimes work, and your sense of right and wrong are seriously twisted.
That is also why all casualties in Iraq are hanging around the neck of the "coalition of the willing" and its chief warmonger - USA - in particular.
So what do you say to the members of the Iraqi interim government as they continue to battle what are essentially insurgents, that because fighting has been continuous since the war started, that it is OUR fault and they need to direct their aggression at the US? Thats brilliant, considering the aid in combatting insurgents we're given. Im sure they would agree completely.
Your claim was that Iraq casualties were, quote: "far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of" (emphasis mine).
No, if you had quoted honestly you would have included this part: CIVILIAN CASUALTIESfar far far lower than in any prior war (more honest emphasis mine), and while we're digging up prior posts YOUR claim is that there were some 800k civilian casualties in Iraq which is roughly 10x higher than either Wikileaks or IraqBodyCount indicate, and is by all measures much higher than even the combined total of civilian and military deaths over the last decade.
I pointed out several cases off the top of my head,
And completely disregarded the fact that you havent given clear figures showing substantial coalition-caused civilian casualties. I suppose if you want to throw the blame for ALL casualties on our side, then by your changing of the rules you win by fiat.
I will admit that I should not have said "All". But on double-checking my facts by a quick google ("revolutionary war civilian casualty count"), first hit pulled up this page, a collection of stats from various wars from the revolution till now (with sources); and it seems that there WAS one war with lower civilian casualties-- the first Iraq war. All others with figures on civilian dead show an astonishingly higher number of dead.
Youre unfortunately mistaken, practically speaking. Not being a legal scholar nor a justice, what you or I think of the constitution does not have the weight of the law. If the Supreme Court disgregards what we think the constitution says, our recourse is to change how we vote (we vote for the people who select and confirm the justices).
Calling them all "corrupt" is a bit of a stretch, incidentally. Some of them may not agree with your or my interpretation, but thats quite a bit different than corrupt.
Committing troops to war without a congressional vote on war is unconstitutional
Good thing we secured such a vote in both Iraq and Afghanistan (a whopping week after 9/11, i might add) prior to committing our troops then-- unlike, incidentally, Obama in Libya.
Opening your post with such blatant misinformation really does wonders for your credibility, you know.
Iraq affair alone had around a million of civilian casualties by various credible estimates,
Thats quite a claim. Lets see whether it holds up
Wikipedia says (citing Iraq Body Count) that up to 12/2010, civilian casualties are between 99,000 and 108,000-- a combined total from insurgency, coalition, and US forces. If you look at the figures from Afghanistan, we see that about 75% of the casualties THERE were caused by "anti-government elements"; so if we extrapolate from Afghanistan to Iraq (not unreasonable IMO, unless you have more accurate figures), then we have a whopping 25,000 civilian casualties, over nearly 10 years, in a war where the enemy intentionally blends itself into the population.
This isnt exactly what I call war-crime material. Again, acquaint yourself with former wars-- we're doing way better than the historical record.
a typical conflict in the 19th century had less then 100,000 casualties on both sides, vast majority of them soldiers.
Which war are you referring to, and how long did it last? Antietam hit nearly 23,000 in a day, IIRC. And comparing a war from the 21st century to a 19th century war is disingenuous in the extreme; why are you discounting the 20th century wars (vietnam, WW2, WW1, etc)?
Microsoft has the salt, so they will be able to check certain passwords. Hash 123456, salt it, compare with the table.
The point of salt isnt to make the hashes impossible to do lookups on (otherwise you couldnt do logins), its to make existing rainbow tables worthless.
Its a heck of an improvement over lowercase alpha-only passwords.
Because we would default sooner than doing something like that. Youre talking nonsense if you think land sales are even on the table.