I agree with your basic premise. If someone really wants in you're going to lose eventually. But it's worth it to point out that if a hacker is probing your OS or database then half of your security measures have already failed.
It's also worth it to point out that many of the systems everyone assumes are perfectly secure have already been breached. The attackers were just better at the task and no one is aware that it happened yet.
If we forever fail to re-examine the delusions of crazy people we'd still believe that the Sun circles the Earth.
Most of the major leaps forward in science and technology have at one point or another been considered delusional. You might think they nuts. It'll be interesting who is remembered by history as closed-minded jackassed when all is said and done.
There is no way to argue that with a Democrat super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House that it's Republicans that prevented the passage of a budget. And Tea Party candidates are a minority of the Republicans. The "Tea Tards", as the poster put it, couldnt have mustered more than about a 10%-15% opposition.
All this being true, if the Democrats couldnt get thier shit straight enough to get a simple budget passed then they have themselves to blame and themselves only.
I'm all for a couple of beers with dinner. Hell maybe even a couple more at a ball game or a bbq. But I find it irresponsible to get completely sauced every night and then have a few bloody mary's every morning to take the edge off.
Because that's not actually true. The richest Americans have about $1 trillion in cash reserves and American corporations have about $1.5 trillion in cash reserves. That's money that's not doing anything other than earning interest. There's an interesting argument to be made that that money is being kept out of the economy because taxes on the rich and corporations are actually too low.
Ok, lets say we take it all and give it to the feds. By your calculation that's $2.5 Trillion going directly to paying down our debt.
Democrats : We'll keep spending the country into oblivion until the people who pay half the taxes of the entire nation already pay more.
Republicans : This is stupid. We have to stop spending.
If there's no money, you stop spending. Why doesn't anyone recongnize that if you took every penny from the top 1% we'd still be completely screwed because we spend way too much .
After 3 years of Democrat leadership (2 years controlling the White House, Senate and House, and the last year still controlling the White House and Senate) we have no national budget. We've been moving forward on continuing resolutions for 36 months now. But it's "Tea Tards" keeping us from getting our national finances in order...
I realize it was a long post, so since you obviously didnt read it all I'll provide a couple of snippits:
Now consider that if you retain backup copies for large periods of time, you must also maintain dated technology that can read it, and in most corporations that also requries maintaining support on devices you never use and hope to never use. If your data retention reaches back to 7+ years (required by law by many financial/federal institutions) then you're talking about having DLT tapes and libraries sitting around still today unless you have a staff, processes and inventory of LTO onto which you can copy the old data.
... all of which incurr cost, which I forgot to add for clarity.
There are no offsite storage costs. To be fair there are redundancy costs if you choose to increase your redundancy. But that's purchasing levels of protection above those provided by tape without additional costs there as well.
This would include the costs to replicate your backups off site. This is different (network pipe/additional SAN storage/alternate location) and more expensive than offsite storage for tape. But it's much more beneficial than tape can be because: 1) You can copy to the other side of the country instead of the other side of town, and 2) you can instantly utilize your offsite copy for restores without wait for media to be returned to your datacenter, 3) you can create COOP levels for your restores AND backups that arent possible with tape (If I lose my entire datacenter in LA, I can fail everything over to NYC in a matter of seconds and my distributed workforce (which you're almost gauranteed to be supporting when you have larger and larger datasets) can still recover their data. Your tapes in a vault on the other side of LA are great. But you dont have shit that can read them...
Disclosure: I've been involved in enterprise backups for Fortune50 companies and federal systems for 15 years. I've lead teams deploying and managing solutions encompassing multiple petabytes of backup storage, and covering everything from legal compliance backups of email, to live R&D data for teams numbering in the thousands of personnel.
First, if you're talking about tb's of backup data you don't hot-swap the drives for the backups. You raid them and you leave them in shelves. Preferably you use teired resources with high speed/high performance SAN on the front, and then slow cheap-as-shit MAID on the back. You write the primary backup to the high speed, high availability tier1 SAN with a 1-2 month retention. You create a backup of the backup to the slow-as-shit teir2 MAID before the expiration of tier1, and retain the tier2 for whatever lifetime is required by your business/agency. If you're doing any of this with batch or script you're an idiot and should be fired. Otherwise you are using enterprise backup software capable of managing the multi-teired solution hands-free.
The hard drives are perhaps slightly less resilient than tapes. But if you're writing to a striped array it doesnt matter. You lose a disk, you replace it, and there's no data integrity concerns. Conversely with tape, you lose one tape because you mislabled it, accidnetly recycled it, dropped in in a snowbank in transit to storage, or used it as a coaster (I've seen all of the above from the high quality people media management jobs attract) you're fucked. That is unless you have been making copies of your tapes, which almost no one does because it's cost prohibitive, doublilng the costs of media purchase , media managment personnel, handling , and offsite storage.
And when the technology of your drives is surpassed you install a new rack and start a data copy.... What do you do with the tens of thousands of DLT tapes you have? You either spends tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on a migration project to copy all that data to LTO or whatever tech comes after that, or you keep all of those old tapes (that you no longer recycle and reuse), keep libraries online that can read them, and usually keep really expensive dead technology support contracts alive just in case you ever have to read that data again. Otherwise keeping the tapes around doesn't mean shit unless your recovery plan is to go onto Ebay and find a piece of 10 year old hardware that someone probably stole from their company's scrap pile.
Filling 1tb of drive space takes longer than to fill 1tb of tape space. But you're not filling a 1tb drive on a backup. You're streaming to between 8 and 25 spindles in an array (depending on the shelf technology) that's attached to high speed fibre, that's directly connected via the same fibre switch to the SAN storage your users are on (again, unless you or your IT director is a dumbass). I promise you with absolute certainty that my streaming write to 10 disk spindles on fibre will kick the crap out of your write to a single LTO5 drive. I'll assume that your LTO5 is also on the same fibre switch, instead of tunneling your backup payload through a backup server or media server on your or dedicated backup LAN, or worse your LAN backbone.
So all of this adds up, but there are additional benefits that drives bring that arent even possible considerations with tape.
Most good enterprise backup solutions now have deduplication technology. Dedup is unbelievably powerful, but cannot be fully utilized with tape. With dedup you can run a Full backup once. Ever. Every subsequent backup can be an incremental block level backup. The savings in storage here is massive. No more creating a full backup of your 2tb dataset every Friday or even once a month. A restore rehydrates any files with every block that has changed in the file over its history. No imagine that you have a file that changes every day (very common). Imagine 100 days worth of backups of that file. Imagine those ba
There are multiple backup softwares that have "one time full" technology. You push the data over the wire in total one time ever. From that point you move only blocks that change or are added to your dataset. Otherwise the already-copied blocks are marked as existing on that days copy back at the datacenter dbase.
A restore of many gbs would suck on 4mb. But it's not impossible to accomplish.
There are plenty of ways to deal with iterative restore needs. Most backup softwares have pre-exec / post-exec script execution options. In one company we had a bit of a cost crunch but a ton of SAN data. We scripted a snapshot to a temp storage location which was then scanned and dedup backed up to really cheap disk arrays once a day. On completion, post-exec would release the temp SAN and make a new snapshot of the next dataset. The benefit was 1) the really cheap online disk storage, 2) complete independence from backup windows because backups didn't impact service performance at all and users never knew it was happening. Iterative restores were easy because the backup storage was hot and online at all times.
A snapshot clone to SAN is most certainly a backup solution, provided you retain iterations of those snapshots and dont overwrite. It inherently provides redundancy that tape cannot (striping over multiple spindles, failover shelf copies, etc, multi-pathing, etc.). Tape writes a block of backup data to one tape, one time, and those tapes are exponentially more suseptible to static during handling than drives. Unless you configured auxillary copies to run for tape to tape, you have no redundancy in your backup, and if you do you are using double the media per backup.
That leads to discussions on how cost effective your backup actually is.
LTO5 tapes cost $70-$100 per, depending on your distributor.
The devices to read/write LTO5 cost $1500-$2500 each.
The robotic libraries to hold those drives cost $10k+, easily reaching above the $100k range for marginal capacity needs. A $mil solution for tapes is not remotely out of the question.
Maintenance contracts on those devices can easily be $10k+/year.
Now start measure the costs for offsite storage of those tapes. How long do you keep them? Where do you store them? How do you return them for use in the case of a restore? The contracts for these (companies like Iron Mountain) are pretty pricey.
Now consider that if you retain backup copies for large periods of time, you must also maintain dated technology that can read it, and in most corporations that also requries maintaining support on devices you never use and hope to never use. If your data retention reaches back to 7+ years (required by law by many financial/federal institutions) then you're talking about having DLT tapes and libraries sitting around still today unless you have a staff, processes and inventory of LTO onto which you can copy the old data.
Tape streams data to a linear storage. Your choices become one client server writing to one tape or many servers writing to many tapes. If you choose the first then you must either have one writer direct attached to every client server, or you have very poor-performing backups because of network bottlenecks forcing increased backup windows or additional drives to stream the backups across. Most corporate backup solutions are forced to stream many client backups over pools of tapes. You can create multiple pools so that you have matching retention periods. You can then retrieve tapes from storage as they expire and return them to libraries where they can be re-used. Obviously the media handling process requires hands-on administration (increasing your personnel costs). Every tape can be re-used a limited number of times before you start getting read/write errors and they must be retired and replaced (increasing your run costs). You cannot reuse a segment of a tape. You must keep the entire tape if it has even one block of protected data. This can mostly be avoided if you engineer planning media pools.
Comparitively, online disk storage is much more easily managed, more cost-effective, more redundant, and more survivable over greater retention periods.
You can get a SAN shelf with 18tb storage for $20k, support for which is rolled directly under the same support for all your data storage.
There very limited hands-on management requirements, and no daily or weekly hands-on administration needs.
You can reuse any expired block on the tray instantly.
You have striping and snapshots for redundancy.
You have easily performed shelf-to-shelf data migrations to address technology upgrades.
You have no reliance on maintaining dated hardware or a staff/process to deal with it.
Your data storage and your data protection can reside on dedicated fibre already in place for SAN connectivity, and your backups will never impact your LAN performance. Attachment to that local fibre gives you highly increased throughput over LAN backups even if you were to employ a dedicated backup VLAN and you can stream any number of cilent machines to the same devices without concern at all for reu
If you're using the type of scenario you're talking about (local backup/offsite copy), then the amount of data is actually less of a factor than is the change rate of that data. If you're using a block level backup solution worth its muster you can put a baseline full on that local disk, do block level updates to it, and then copy those blocks offsite. The network bandwidth used ona daily basis then becomes on those blocks within your data that has changed, and not even all a given file that was edited.
This becomes less and less effective if you're dealing with large rates of change, or certain types of data. (Compressed/encrypted files that are updated do not back up at a block level well at all, and more often than not you're going to pull the whole file every time its edited.)
Restores of data arent even that bad unless you have to rehydrate files that are constantly changed, and you're rolling back to a baseline from long ago.
FWIW: We use the cheapest 2.5" laptop drives available, in the cheapest bus-powered 2.5" USB enclosures we can get our hands on (I think the last round of them cost us $5, each). And we test our backups randomly, whenever the accountant decides he wants to see what things looked like last week/last year. Acronis then cheerfully does a bare-metal restore from [random backup drive] onto our spare server-box, with 100% success.
Why is it that so many companies justify their backup solution while including phrases like "the cheapest drives" and "the least expensive possible", but when they ask for a restore there damn well better not be any excuses for a failure?
Ok. Then by your logic, if you want to know whether or not the press as a whole is favorable or negative toward any topic, you much first gain metrics of only Fox news. If Fox is overwhelmingly friendly to the topic, then no other invesitigation into the position of any other news network or medium is required and you can definitively say that the [coverage by the media] is friendly. Any and all other sources of news are without consequence.
This ignores the fact that if any of these news networks were actually doing their jobs every one of them would be perfectly centerline between friendly/hostile on every topic.
Fox News also regularly challenges Obama policies, tactics, positions and did so during the elections. And yet the Obama administration has succeeded in implementing more policies they have attempted than not.
You can either claim that Fox is so huge and so influential that the coverage from any other major news outlet can be disregarded, or you must concede that the favorable coverage of the President and his policies on all those other networks greatly influences the national debate. You cant have both.
*Trumpeting* : "We have a brand new bunker buster warhead that can penetrate 50 feet of solid steel!... "
*under his breath* : "... and a rocket that carries 5 warheads."
I cannot argue that the spending during the Clinton years was reigned in, and that the national debt was reduced. Sorry for the confusion, I had meant to refer to the last two elections (both Bush Jr.). But did you didn't even read all that I wrote?
I stated quite plainly that much of those issues I pointed to had nothing to do with Barrack Obama. And it doesnt matter. People are feeling the pain of those things under his watch, and they arent going to give a shit who presented the problem. It takes minimal intelligence to recognize that if overspending, waste and corruption got us into this mess, then continue overspending, waste and corruption by whoever is in office right now isnt the fucking solution. If you're going to praise Clinton for reducing debt then you must equally condemn Obama for increasing it exponentially more so than even Bush Jr did. Or are you afraid of being labeled a racist?
When they refused lawful requests to vacate, and openly broke any of a myriad of statutes.
Wait..... That didn't happen. That's right, they got permits to be everywhere they were, and left those locations in better shape than when they got there.
I didn't say they were untrue. In fact, I stated that the media pointed out the fringe idiots and painted the Tea Party as a whole by the same brush. Conversely the media has given every excuse for the violations of the law, the complete disregard for public safety, and the open calls for violence and overthrow of both the government and our system of commerce. While the "leaders" of the Tea Party actively denounced the idiots who attended the town halls and rallies even though no actual crimes were included in the allegations, the "leaders" of OWS have wholly refused to denounce blatant crimes, and calls for bankers to be drug into the streets. The media has ignored that the "leaders" of OWS have covered up thefts, rapes and drug overdoses, and openly stated that they will not report such things to law enforcement and will "handle it themselves".
Actually it's just as applicable in a public park.
When your organization monopolizes a public park for months, damages the property in it, creates unsanitary conditions in it, and makes it an inappropriate place for me to take my kid because of pervasive drug use, nudity, profanity and crime, you have actually violated my protected freedoms. Particularly when my taxes help to fund that park. When law enforcement and emergency services are inequally allocated to that occupation because of the conditions it produces and there's risk that people in need elsewhere will have delayed response times then you needlessly placed others at risk. When you cost the city/state large amounts of money to handle the logistics of your occupation you consume tax payer funds much better spent in other areas, ironically in places like schools or social services that OWS is such a hot proponent of.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your basic premise. If someone really wants in you're going to lose eventually. But it's worth it to point out that if a hacker is probing your OS or database then half of your security measures have already failed.
It's also worth it to point out that many of the systems everyone assumes are perfectly secure have already been breached. The attackers were just better at the task and no one is aware that it happened yet.
They didnt breach the database that contains your Rift character's credit card info and billing address...
If we forever fail to re-examine the delusions of crazy people we'd still believe that the Sun circles the Earth.
Most of the major leaps forward in science and technology have at one point or another been considered delusional. You might think they nuts. It'll be interesting who is remembered by history as closed-minded jackassed when all is said and done.
There is no way to argue that with a Democrat super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House that it's Republicans that prevented the passage of a budget. And Tea Party candidates are a minority of the Republicans. The "Tea Tards", as the poster put it, couldnt have mustered more than about a 10%-15% opposition.
All this being true, if the Democrats couldnt get thier shit straight enough to get a simple budget passed then they have themselves to blame and themselves only.
Perfect.
I'm all for a couple of beers with dinner. Hell maybe even a couple more at a ball game or a bbq. But I find it irresponsible to get completely sauced every night and then have a few bloody mary's every morning to take the edge off.
Because that's not actually true. The richest Americans have about $1 trillion in cash reserves and American corporations have about $1.5 trillion in cash reserves. That's money that's not doing anything other than earning interest. There's an interesting argument to be made that that money is being kept out of the economy because taxes on the rich and corporations are actually too low.
Ok, lets say we take it all and give it to the feds. By your calculation that's $2.5 Trillion going directly to paying down our debt.
Only $12.5 Trillion to go....
Democrats : We'll keep spending the country into oblivion until the people who pay half the taxes of the entire nation already pay more. Republicans : This is stupid. We have to stop spending.
If there's no money, you stop spending. Why doesn't anyone recongnize that if you took every penny from the top 1% we'd still be completely screwed because we spend way too much .
When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.
After 3 years of Democrat leadership (2 years controlling the White House, Senate and House, and the last year still controlling the White House and Senate) we have no national budget. We've been moving forward on continuing resolutions for 36 months now. But it's "Tea Tards" keeping us from getting our national finances in order...
Now consider that if you retain backup copies for large periods of time, you must also maintain dated technology that can read it, and in most corporations that also requries maintaining support on devices you never use and hope to never use. If your data retention reaches back to 7+ years (required by law by many financial/federal institutions) then you're talking about having DLT tapes and libraries sitting around still today unless you have a staff, processes and inventory of LTO onto which you can copy the old data.
There are no offsite storage costs. To be fair there are redundancy costs if you choose to increase your redundancy. But that's purchasing levels of protection above those provided by tape without additional costs there as well.
This would include the costs to replicate your backups off site. This is different (network pipe/additional SAN storage/alternate location) and more expensive than offsite storage for tape. But it's much more beneficial than tape can be because: 1) You can copy to the other side of the country instead of the other side of town, and 2) you can instantly utilize your offsite copy for restores without wait for media to be returned to your datacenter, 3) you can create COOP levels for your restores AND backups that arent possible with tape (If I lose my entire datacenter in LA, I can fail everything over to NYC in a matter of seconds and my distributed workforce (which you're almost gauranteed to be supporting when you have larger and larger datasets) can still recover their data. Your tapes in a vault on the other side of LA are great. But you dont have shit that can read them...
Disclosure: I've been involved in enterprise backups for Fortune50 companies and federal systems for 15 years. I've lead teams deploying and managing solutions encompassing multiple petabytes of backup storage, and covering everything from legal compliance backups of email, to live R&D data for teams numbering in the thousands of personnel.
First, if you're talking about tb's of backup data you don't hot-swap the drives for the backups. You raid them and you leave them in shelves. Preferably you use teired resources with high speed/high performance SAN on the front, and then slow cheap-as-shit MAID on the back. You write the primary backup to the high speed, high availability tier1 SAN with a 1-2 month retention. You create a backup of the backup to the slow-as-shit teir2 MAID before the expiration of tier1, and retain the tier2 for whatever lifetime is required by your business/agency. If you're doing any of this with batch or script you're an idiot and should be fired. Otherwise you are using enterprise backup software capable of managing the multi-teired solution hands-free.
The hard drives are perhaps slightly less resilient than tapes. But if you're writing to a striped array it doesnt matter. You lose a disk, you replace it, and there's no data integrity concerns. Conversely with tape, you lose one tape because you mislabled it, accidnetly recycled it, dropped in in a snowbank in transit to storage, or used it as a coaster (I've seen all of the above from the high quality people media management jobs attract) you're fucked. That is unless you have been making copies of your tapes, which almost no one does because it's cost prohibitive, doublilng the costs of media purchase , media managment personnel, handling , and offsite storage.
And when the technology of your drives is surpassed you install a new rack and start a data copy.... What do you do with the tens of thousands of DLT tapes you have? You either spends tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars on a migration project to copy all that data to LTO or whatever tech comes after that, or you keep all of those old tapes (that you no longer recycle and reuse), keep libraries online that can read them, and usually keep really expensive dead technology support contracts alive just in case you ever have to read that data again. Otherwise keeping the tapes around doesn't mean shit unless your recovery plan is to go onto Ebay and find a piece of 10 year old hardware that someone probably stole from their company's scrap pile.
Filling 1tb of drive space takes longer than to fill 1tb of tape space. But you're not filling a 1tb drive on a backup. You're streaming to between 8 and 25 spindles in an array (depending on the shelf technology) that's attached to high speed fibre, that's directly connected via the same fibre switch to the SAN storage your users are on (again, unless you or your IT director is a dumbass). I promise you with absolute certainty that my streaming write to 10 disk spindles on fibre will kick the crap out of your write to a single LTO5 drive. I'll assume that your LTO5 is also on the same fibre switch, instead of tunneling your backup payload through a backup server or media server on your or dedicated backup LAN, or worse your LAN backbone.
So all of this adds up, but there are additional benefits that drives bring that arent even possible considerations with tape.
Most good enterprise backup solutions now have deduplication technology. Dedup is unbelievably powerful, but cannot be fully utilized with tape. With dedup you can run a Full backup once. Ever. Every subsequent backup can be an incremental block level backup. The savings in storage here is massive. No more creating a full backup of your 2tb dataset every Friday or even once a month. A restore rehydrates any files with every block that has changed in the file over its history. No imagine that you have a file that changes every day (very common). Imagine 100 days worth of backups of that file. Imagine those ba
There are multiple backup softwares that have "one time full" technology. You push the data over the wire in total one time ever. From that point you move only blocks that change or are added to your dataset. Otherwise the already-copied blocks are marked as existing on that days copy back at the datacenter dbase.
A restore of many gbs would suck on 4mb. But it's not impossible to accomplish.
There are plenty of ways to deal with iterative restore needs. Most backup softwares have pre-exec / post-exec script execution options. In one company we had a bit of a cost crunch but a ton of SAN data. We scripted a snapshot to a temp storage location which was then scanned and dedup backed up to really cheap disk arrays once a day. On completion, post-exec would release the temp SAN and make a new snapshot of the next dataset. The benefit was 1) the really cheap online disk storage, 2) complete independence from backup windows because backups didn't impact service performance at all and users never knew it was happening. Iterative restores were easy because the backup storage was hot and online at all times.
A snapshot clone to SAN is most certainly a backup solution, provided you retain iterations of those snapshots and dont overwrite. It inherently provides redundancy that tape cannot (striping over multiple spindles, failover shelf copies, etc, multi-pathing, etc.). Tape writes a block of backup data to one tape, one time, and those tapes are exponentially more suseptible to static during handling than drives. Unless you configured auxillary copies to run for tape to tape, you have no redundancy in your backup, and if you do you are using double the media per backup.
That leads to discussions on how cost effective your backup actually is.
LTO5 tapes cost $70-$100 per, depending on your distributor.
The devices to read/write LTO5 cost $1500-$2500 each.
The robotic libraries to hold those drives cost $10k+, easily reaching above the $100k range for marginal capacity needs. A $mil solution for tapes is not remotely out of the question.
Maintenance contracts on those devices can easily be $10k+/year.
Now start measure the costs for offsite storage of those tapes. How long do you keep them? Where do you store them? How do you return them for use in the case of a restore? The contracts for these (companies like Iron Mountain) are pretty pricey.
Now consider that if you retain backup copies for large periods of time, you must also maintain dated technology that can read it, and in most corporations that also requries maintaining support on devices you never use and hope to never use. If your data retention reaches back to 7+ years (required by law by many financial/federal institutions) then you're talking about having DLT tapes and libraries sitting around still today unless you have a staff, processes and inventory of LTO onto which you can copy the old data.
Tape streams data to a linear storage. Your choices become one client server writing to one tape or many servers writing to many tapes. If you choose the first then you must either have one writer direct attached to every client server, or you have very poor-performing backups because of network bottlenecks forcing increased backup windows or additional drives to stream the backups across. Most corporate backup solutions are forced to stream many client backups over pools of tapes. You can create multiple pools so that you have matching retention periods. You can then retrieve tapes from storage as they expire and return them to libraries where they can be re-used. Obviously the media handling process requires hands-on administration (increasing your personnel costs). Every tape can be re-used a limited number of times before you start getting read/write errors and they must be retired and replaced (increasing your run costs). You cannot reuse a segment of a tape. You must keep the entire tape if it has even one block of protected data. This can mostly be avoided if you engineer planning media pools.
Comparitively, online disk storage is much more easily managed, more cost-effective, more redundant, and more survivable over greater retention periods.
You can get a SAN shelf with 18tb storage for $20k, support for which is rolled directly under the same support for all your data storage.
There very limited hands-on management requirements, and no daily or weekly hands-on administration needs.
You can reuse any expired block on the tray instantly.
You have striping and snapshots for redundancy.
You have easily performed shelf-to-shelf data migrations to address technology upgrades.
You have no reliance on maintaining dated hardware or a staff/process to deal with it.
Your data storage and your data protection can reside on dedicated fibre already in place for SAN connectivity, and your backups will never impact your LAN performance. Attachment to that local fibre gives you highly increased throughput over LAN backups even if you were to employ a dedicated backup VLAN and you can stream any number of cilent machines to the same devices without concern at all for reu
If you're using the type of scenario you're talking about (local backup/offsite copy), then the amount of data is actually less of a factor than is the change rate of that data. If you're using a block level backup solution worth its muster you can put a baseline full on that local disk, do block level updates to it, and then copy those blocks offsite. The network bandwidth used ona daily basis then becomes on those blocks within your data that has changed, and not even all a given file that was edited.
This becomes less and less effective if you're dealing with large rates of change, or certain types of data. (Compressed/encrypted files that are updated do not back up at a block level well at all, and more often than not you're going to pull the whole file every time its edited.)
Restores of data arent even that bad unless you have to rehydrate files that are constantly changed, and you're rolling back to a baseline from long ago.
Why is it that so many companies justify their backup solution while including phrases like "the cheapest drives" and "the least expensive possible", but when they ask for a restore there damn well better not be any excuses for a failure?
Ok. Then by your logic, if you want to know whether or not the press as a whole is favorable or negative toward any topic, you much first gain metrics of only Fox news. If Fox is overwhelmingly friendly to the topic, then no other invesitigation into the position of any other news network or medium is required and you can definitively say that the [coverage by the media] is friendly. Any and all other sources of news are without consequence.
This ignores the fact that if any of these news networks were actually doing their jobs every one of them would be perfectly centerline between friendly/hostile on every topic.
Fox News also regularly challenges Obama policies, tactics, positions and did so during the elections. And yet the Obama administration has succeeded in implementing more policies they have attempted than not.
You can either claim that Fox is so huge and so influential that the coverage from any other major news outlet can be disregarded, or you must concede that the favorable coverage of the President and his policies on all those other networks greatly influences the national debate. You cant have both.
Um... Osama?
Disinformation.
*Trumpeting* : "We have a brand new bunker buster warhead that can penetrate 50 feet of solid steel!... " *under his breath* : "... and a rocket that carries 5 warheads."
I cannot argue that the spending during the Clinton years was reigned in, and that the national debt was reduced. Sorry for the confusion, I had meant to refer to the last two elections (both Bush Jr.). But did you didn't even read all that I wrote?
I stated quite plainly that much of those issues I pointed to had nothing to do with Barrack Obama. And it doesnt matter. People are feeling the pain of those things under his watch, and they arent going to give a shit who presented the problem. It takes minimal intelligence to recognize that if overspending, waste and corruption got us into this mess, then continue overspending, waste and corruption by whoever is in office right now isnt the fucking solution. If you're going to praise Clinton for reducing debt then you must equally condemn Obama for increasing it exponentially more so than even Bush Jr did. Or are you afraid of being labeled a racist?
When they refused lawful requests to vacate, and openly broke any of a myriad of statutes.
Wait..... That didn't happen. That's right, they got permits to be everywhere they were, and left those locations in better shape than when they got there.
I didn't say they were untrue. In fact, I stated that the media pointed out the fringe idiots and painted the Tea Party as a whole by the same brush. Conversely the media has given every excuse for the violations of the law, the complete disregard for public safety, and the open calls for violence and overthrow of both the government and our system of commerce. While the "leaders" of the Tea Party actively denounced the idiots who attended the town halls and rallies even though no actual crimes were included in the allegations, the "leaders" of OWS have wholly refused to denounce blatant crimes, and calls for bankers to be drug into the streets. The media has ignored that the "leaders" of OWS have covered up thefts, rapes and drug overdoses, and openly stated that they will not report such things to law enforcement and will "handle it themselves".
Actually it's just as applicable in a public park.
When your organization monopolizes a public park for months, damages the property in it, creates unsanitary conditions in it, and makes it an inappropriate place for me to take my kid because of pervasive drug use, nudity, profanity and crime, you have actually violated my protected freedoms. Particularly when my taxes help to fund that park. When law enforcement and emergency services are inequally allocated to that occupation because of the conditions it produces and there's risk that people in need elsewhere will have delayed response times then you needlessly placed others at risk. When you cost the city/state large amounts of money to handle the logistics of your occupation you consume tax payer funds much better spent in other areas, ironically in places like schools or social services that OWS is such a hot proponent of.
How do you reconcile that?