Ed Markey is my rep. and he is really pissing me off lately. I tend to agree with him on the issues, but he doesn't give a damn about his constituents. In our district an organized crime figure has been buying up large houses and turning them into flop houses, exploiting some state loophole for "rehab" facilities. They are not properly regulated or registered, but for somereason, the municipalities are unable to shut them down. In my neighborhood the guy converted a beautiful $900,000 greek revival. Now the neighborhood is littered with used syringes and crawling sketchy characters with no roots in the area. The mayor and our state rep. have been battling him but have hit a brick wall. They went to Ed and he said the problem was local to our neighborhood, not district wide and he wouldn't help. This despite the fact that this guy owns several other such "sober houses" in the district and I read a newspaper article about one in the next city over. Ed is too busy clawing his way up the Democratic leadership ladder to take time to rescue his constituencey from an organized crime fueled slide into decrepitude. Unfortunately Ed knows he is invulnerable. He has too much money and is too entrenched, what are we gonna do, replace him? With what, a Republican? Good luck. Democracy in action.
Interestingly enough, the development of the Data General mini was written into a book, "The Soul of a New Machine" which was one of the first attempts to capture the group dynamics of a high-technology R&D effort in the world of computers. Good read.
Interesting mainly because of this guy's personality.
Back in the nineties I used to hang out with "boomer" commander (a Captain). He said all that Tom Clancy sub hunting stuff was overrated and that boomers on both sides operated with near impunity. He rode boats for two decades and was pinned twice by the Soviets. In fact he felt that it was a waste of money driving boomers with nuclear reactors because it was so easy to make your boat scarce when you had to. According to him the Navy sends the boomers on unecessarily long cruises to justify the use of nuclear power and it negatively affects morale without adding significant strategic advantage. He did approve of nuclear powered attack subs, which benefit from the extra power. At any rate, he said that the Navy was always saying there was a revolution in anti-submarine warfare just around the corner but it never materialized. Neither side could hope to interdict enough of the enemy's boomers to effect a first strike without fear of retaliation. I presume the biggest problem the Chinese have is lack of numbers. Maybe things have changed, but I doubt it. Also, quiet isn't everything. The Soviets never built subs as quiet as ours, but they built ones that could dive deeper.
Germany was a democracy when Hitler was elected as Chancellor. It was still a democracy when he suspended habeas corpus. It was still a democracy when the coalition including the Nazi party and the Catholic Center Party pushed through the Enabling act, although probably not after the act was passed.
Democracy is one of the tools we use to preserve freedom. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best we've found so far.
I don't disagree, but for future reference Hitler wasn't elected Chancellor, as it wasn't an elected office. President Hindenberg appointed him in 1933. Hitler was never elected to any office, although he lost the 1932 Presidential race to Hindenberg in a runnoff.
One of the plaintiffs (seperate suit) does have proof that he was under surveillance. The Justice Department accidentally included a transcript of one of his tapped calls in some discovery materials they sent him regarding a case he was trying (he is a lawyer). Of course the justice department has moved to suppress the document as classified. Downright Helleresque.
Cuba will be a nice place to visit when Castro dies - after private citizens can own property, build businesses and such.
They can do that now. About 22% of Cuba's workforce is in the private sector. And much of the other 78% work on CPAs (Cooperativa de Producción Agropecuaria or Agricultural Cooperatives), which although publicly owned have a high degree of decentralization. The CPA allocates plots to individual farmers and brings their product directly to market rather than to the government. Many Agricultural communes have also been transformed into UBPC (Unidad Básica de Producción Cooperativa) cooperatives with explicit usufruct codified in law. The law also states that UBPC workers own their product.
Security Council requires unanimous decisions, and the US is always at odds with someone else in the Sec Council. During the Cold War, it was the USSR, and now it's China (and Russia still somewhat).
The SC does not require unanimity. It requires a 3/5 majority. However the five permanent members (the US, Britain, France, China and Russia) have vetos.
The calendar syncs with Exchange indirectly through Entourage or Outlook. Also it syncs with Address Book, which syncs with AD for contacts. Kinda hokey, but I guess it'll work. Beats me about the car.
I think he's catching on very well for a big dog. Most of us would be very happy with a boss this open and clued.
Yeah, John is a great boss. And he is very technical. In addition to his MD he has a degree in informatics from MIT and has written books about healthcare informatics, programming and unix system administration. Also, if you happen to suffer from mushroom poisoning, he is your man. John is also the CIO of the Harvard Medical School. Here is a word doc of his CV.
He's not running a nuclear reactor -- or a hospital. He's just doing email and typical business person stuff. Nobody lets a CIO do potentially dangerous or important things.
John is also an Emergency Medicine MD, so his business stuff is potentially dangerous and important. Actually, he is a programmer too. And he has a Masters in informatics from MIT.
Most well known for being the responsible guy for one of the biggest hospital IT failures on the books. All hospital systems out for 4 days? What kind of good CIO has that kind of failure on his watch?
In this case, one who inherited a broken network architecture from a previous CIO and was denied funding to fix it until it was too late. I know; I was there.
Obviously, none of them. It's just that a lot of us were greatly saddened when the nation whose armies liberated Buchenwald concentration camp, invented Guantanamo & Abu Ghraib. Perhaps there's a perception that some spring-cleaning was needed.
An ironic aspect of the liberation of Buchenwald and Dachau is that the Army continues to deny that some of the liberators were black GIs from the 761st Tank and 183rd Combat Engineer battalions. There is overwhelming eyewitness evidence to their actions, much of it from inmates who had never seen a black man before and were hardly likely to imagine such an event.
she is a minority (Indian-American) and comes from a culture which has traditionally repressed women. Her achievements are certainly inspirational to a lot of women from the part of the world she comes from.
I agree that American culture has historically repressed women and I am sure that women from Eastern Massachusetts will find her achievements inspirational. She is certainly an impressive woman. Of course other cultures have their own impressive women to inspire them. India for instance had, Phoolan Devi, and a certain Prime Minister, for better or worse.
According to the fourth U.N. report, the environment is a coupled, chaotic, non-linear system and long term climate change is not predictable. That's what they (the U.N. IPCC) say.
Can you provide a citation? Because this is what I see in the report:
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Best estimate and assessed likelihood range for future temperature projections for first time. Broadly similar to the TAR [Third Assessment Report] but not directly comparable. For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected. Earlier IPCC projections of 0.15 to 0.3 oC per decade can now be compared with observed values of 0.2 oC. Best estimate for low scenario (B1) is 1.8C (likely range is 1.1C to 2.9C), and for high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0C (likely range is 2.4C to 6.4C). Broadly consistent with span quoted for SRES in TAR, but not directly comparable
There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice. Snow cover is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth most permafrost regions
Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. Very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent
Likely that future tropical cyclones will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation. Less confidence in decrease of total number. Extra-tropical storm tracks projected to move poleward with consequent changes in wind, precipitation, and temperature patterns. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized. Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C warmer than pre-industrial sustained for millennia...eventual melt of the Greenland ice sheet. Would raise sea level by 7 m., comparable to 125,000 years ago.
Those are bullet points from the IPCC Chairman's presentation on the current state of the Fourth Assessment Report. You can get it on the IPCC web site.
I suspect this story stems from the semi-interchangeability of 7.63 Mauser and 7.62 Tokarev. It is generally safe, if not ideal, to fire Mauser ammo in WWII era Soviet submachine guns and pistols. I wouldn't want to try firing Tokarev ammo in a Mauser though.
No, we weren't. Your definition of replication seems to be real time remote replication, probably between disk arrays over a SAN underneath a file system or a database. That's fine in your environment.
Obviously not or I wouldn't have used a RAID1 mirror as an example of replication. I said a replica is a real or "near real time" (as in async replication) copy of the data which is continuously updated. In a replica both copies of the data are updated continuously. Modern snapshotting and journaling tech has added the possibility of hanging point in time copies off of your replicas, as in CDP. Those snaps and journaled writes can be used as backups, but your replica itself will always be consistent (or in async, near consistent) with your primary copy.
In our environment, replication referred to making multiple copies onto media like tape or optical disks. Now, I was doing replication of this form before remote replication was a twinkle in a disk array vendors eye (RAID was still a pretty new concept back then). The system doesn't let you truly delete data, you can always roll back your metadata (that is, the directory structure) to a previous version and the data is out there on stable storage someplace. So, is there a backup in the house?
Those aren't replicas. They are point in time copies. Replicas are continually updated. What you were doing was backing up, apparently for DR purposes, which back then was probably your only DR option. Nowadays, backup is a poor DR solution for anything but very small shops with lax RPOs. That is the biggest problem with backup for DR. Disregarding the recovery time and resource drain, if I were to restore my main systems to the state of my last backup it would probably result in multiple deaths. Likewise, if I were to restore all my critical systems from backups to new hardware, the time it would take would put me out of business permanently. I don't know what your systems were doing, but odds are the RTO/RPO were a lot more forgiving back then. Shit, when I was a kid we used to have to turn the computer on before we fed our programs in. Nowadays our RPO is less than 5 minutes and our RTO is 24 hours. And that is forgiving compared to financial services companies.
You want to define a replica in a certain way and you want to define backup in a certain way that not everyone else would agree with. Given your definitions of backup and replica, sure, you can say that replication is not backup.
I define it that way. EMC defines it that way. HP, IBM... Every major storage and backup hardware and software vendor works by these definitions. These are distinct concepts, of course they have distinct names. This whole argument is like when creationists say evolution is "just a theory." Well a theory is something very specific in science. Just because non-scientists use the words theory and hypothesis interchangeably does not make them the same thing.
I've certainly spent plenty of time explaining to people that having a RAID-1 mirror doesn't protect them against a lot of threats and that maybe they should consider making backup copies. I've also spent plenty of time explaining to people why they should have offsite copies of their backups which was where we came in in this discussion.
They should offsite them if they need them to be disaster survivable. This is a low priority for me, because I do not use backups for DR purposes. A full complement of backups is a nice "to have" in my DR plan, but not a deal breaker. As it stands today I don't have the resources (tape or FTE) to duplicate my backups, so offsiteing means transporting originals. This adds time to restores and creates security problems. In my industry the security problems could mean jail time for me. Until I get fully off tape and have enough disk resources to do remote duplication of my backups or remote replication of their storage resources, offsiteing backups is a losing p
Evolution works people. Sit back and grab a coffee.
If you really used SUSE you would know Evolution doesn't work at all, at least not with Exchange.
But seriously, Evolution (the app) sucks. It will begetting much better very soon however. As part of Novell's current program of kissing my CIO's ass they fixed most of the major bugs which made it useless in the enterprise. So the version he and I are running is actually quite decent. I can't wait till they distribute the patches so I can run it on a better distribution (Ubuntu).
Actually, I develop large scale storage systems and was doing 100 terabyte systems back in the early nineties. You can narrowly define backup the way you did if you like but it's not terribly useful. People understand the term "backup" as something that will keep them safe so when you start telling them they don't want backups you confuse them. Maybe you enjoy doing that.
That is ludicrous. It is in fact the only useful classification. I have literally sat in a room with the heads of hardware development of three major storage platforms for hours while we tried to get this point through to
PHBs. It is really quite simple. You back up data you want protect content for roll-back. You archive data you don't expect to access for long term storage. You replicate data for which you need high availability.
These distinctions are not arbitrary, they are purely empirical.
The terms are fluid and not well defined. For example, in your RAID-1 example, what happens if you cleanly dismount the disk and break the mirror and put one of the disks on the shelf and replace it? Do you now have a backup or a replica?
It becomes a backup as soon as you break the mirror of course. There is nothing fluid or undefined about that. It has stopped replicating and represents a point in time copy of your data, in other words a backup. The only arguable ambiguity there is between backup and archive. You could use that copy for archive purposes rather than backup ones. That is defined by the data access profile. In other words if you removed the original data and put the split mirror in a closet, you have created an archive. If you leave the original data in place, you have created a backup. Either way, you obviously no longer have a replica.
A lot of my work has been with storage systems so large that you can't replicate them in a reasonable amount of time (these were in the 100 terabyte range back in the early 90's and are now in the multi-petabyte range). The only solution is to make multiple copies as the data is loaded into the system. We called this replication but it's not replication in the way the you define it. When users asked we explained it as being a form of backup because that's what they understood.
You are lying to them them. Which might be fine if they are end users. But if they are in the storage business, they need to understand these concepts. Frankly your end users really should know too. In the situation you describe, you can't restore deleted data because you have no backup, only replicas. The end users should know that. Unless you are journaling writes of course, but you didn't say that. And what you describe certainly is replication. I never said replication had to be disk based. Array based replication is a pain. We do SAN based replication with journaled writes (combined CRR/CDP).
It sounds to me like you took some training and got a certificate - good for you. Try not to be so snotty to people who are using terms differently than you, though. And some of us around here are the ones who define the terms.It sounds to me like you took some training and got a certificate - good for you.
Never taken any training; have no certificates. Just been in the business for ten years. You might want to follow your own advice. You are totally 100% wrong about these terms. I don't believe for a second that you "defined" these terms. This is very basic industry standard stuff. Although my shop is small (actually 147T not 100) it is quite well known and important in the industry (we are THE national IT leader in our vertical). I have a very close relationship with the folks who design the devices at several major vendors. Your statement that replication is a type of backup is just plain untrue and counterproductive.
No, replication and backup are subcategories of data protection. They perform completely different functions. Backups are iterative copies used to roll back data to known good states. Replicas are real-time or near real-time updated copies used to provide fault tolerance. For instance, the mirrored disk in your RAID1 RAID set is a replica, not a backup. If you tried to restore a known good state off of it, you wouldn't have much luck. But it does protect you against failure due to a hardware fault in the other drive. In between there are snapshotting technologies which can provide some of the benefits of both, like continuous data protection, but those also have very specific use cases.
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not a storage and backup professional. I am responsible, with one other person, for architecting and administering a medium sized SAN of about 100 Terabytes/300 servers. The SAN encompasses two data centers. One of my most difficult tasks is teaching the CIO the difference between backup, archive and replication, and the use cases for each. Most people, like yourself think that all data protection is backup.
In IT, a backup kept on the same site as the original is hardly a backup at all.
This statement assumes you rely on backups for disaster recover. That in turn assumes you have very lax recovery point and recovery time objectives. Backup could never meet my DR RTO and RPO; I rely on replication for DR. I use backups to restore deleted files and programmer errors. Offsiteing my backups gains me nothing but decreased security and a long restore time. That said backup probably has plenty good enough RTO/RPO for most people's audio collections. For that reason I wish I had done one last week before my hard drive failed. Oddly I don't replicate my Powerbook.:-(
The French resistance may have made life hot for the Nazi troops once in a while, but they had very little to do with why Germany lost the war, and they certainly didn't drive the Germans out of France.
This is true, but it was also a strategic decision. France had a government in exile with an Army and Navy. The maquis and urban resistance organizations were largely directed from the Special Operations Executive in Britain, or directly by the Free French Army depending on the unit. Thir role was clearly defined as intelligence gathering, interdiction, rescuing downed airmen and limited guerrilla an assassination operations. Had France been abandoned by the allies like Yugoslavia, perhaps er resistance movement would have been more ambitious. The Yugoslavian Communist partisans flat out defeated the Germans and Italians. And they did so with little material support from the Allies. Until 1943 the received practically nothing. And it wasn't until 1944 that there were any kind of combined operations. By the end of the war they were an 800,000 strong army of highly motivated citizen soldiers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ed Markey is my rep. and he is really pissing me off lately. I tend to agree with him on the issues, but he doesn't give a damn about his constituents. In our district an organized crime figure has been buying up large houses and turning them into flop houses, exploiting some state loophole for "rehab" facilities. They are not properly regulated or registered, but for somereason, the municipalities are unable to shut them down. In my neighborhood the guy converted a beautiful $900,000 greek revival. Now the neighborhood is littered with used syringes and crawling sketchy characters with no roots in the area. The mayor and our state rep. have been battling him but have hit a brick wall. They went to Ed and he said the problem was local to our neighborhood, not district wide and he wouldn't help. This despite the fact that this guy owns several other such "sober houses" in the district and I read a newspaper article about one in the next city over. Ed is too busy clawing his way up the Democratic leadership ladder to take time to rescue his constituencey from an organized crime fueled slide into decrepitude. Unfortunately Ed knows he is invulnerable. He has too much money and is too entrenched, what are we gonna do, replace him? With what, a Republican? Good luck. Democracy in action.
I agree 100%. Right up to the end with the Felix's story telling bear story. Kidder dwelled on Tom though.
Back in the nineties I used to hang out with "boomer" commander (a Captain). He said all that Tom Clancy sub hunting stuff was overrated and that boomers on both sides operated with near impunity. He rode boats for two decades and was pinned twice by the Soviets. In fact he felt that it was a waste of money driving boomers with nuclear reactors because it was so easy to make your boat scarce when you had to. According to him the Navy sends the boomers on unecessarily long cruises to justify the use of nuclear power and it negatively affects morale without adding significant strategic advantage. He did approve of nuclear powered attack subs, which benefit from the extra power. At any rate, he said that the Navy was always saying there was a revolution in anti-submarine warfare just around the corner but it never materialized. Neither side could hope to interdict enough of the enemy's boomers to effect a first strike without fear of retaliation. I presume the biggest problem the Chinese have is lack of numbers. Maybe things have changed, but I doubt it. Also, quiet isn't everything. The Soviets never built subs as quiet as ours, but they built ones that could dive deeper.
One of the plaintiffs (seperate suit) does have proof that he was under surveillance. The Justice Department accidentally included a transcript of one of his tapped calls in some discovery materials they sent him regarding a case he was trying (he is a lawyer). Of course the justice department has moved to suppress the document as classified. Downright Helleresque.
The calendar syncs with Exchange indirectly through Entourage or Outlook. Also it syncs with Address Book, which syncs with AD for contacts. Kinda hokey, but I guess it'll work. Beats me about the car.
Yes really. Thanks for illustrating my point.
Can you provide a citation? Because this is what I see in the report:
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Best estimate and assessed likelihood range for future temperature projections for first time. Broadly similar to the TAR [Third Assessment Report] but not directly comparable. For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected. Earlier IPCC projections of 0.15 to 0.3 oC per decade can now be compared with observed values of 0.2 oC. Best estimate for low scenario (B1) is 1.8C (likely range is 1.1C to 2.9C), and for high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0C (likely range is 2.4C to 6.4C). Broadly consistent with span quoted for SRES in TAR, but not directly comparable
There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice. Snow cover is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth most permafrost regions Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. Very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent Likely that future tropical cyclones will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation. Less confidence in decrease of total number. Extra-tropical storm tracks projected to move poleward with consequent changes in wind, precipitation, and temperature patterns. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized. Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C warmer than pre-industrial sustained for millennia...eventual melt of the Greenland ice sheet. Would raise sea level by 7 m., comparable to 125,000 years ago.
Those are bullet points from the IPCC Chairman's presentation on the current state of the Fourth Assessment Report. You can get it on the IPCC web site.
I suspect this story stems from the semi-interchangeability of 7.63 Mauser and 7.62 Tokarev. It is generally safe, if not ideal, to fire Mauser ammo in WWII era Soviet submachine guns and pistols. I wouldn't want to try firing Tokarev ammo in a Mauser though.
Obviously not or I wouldn't have used a RAID1 mirror as an example of replication. I said a replica is a real or "near real time" (as in async replication) copy of the data which is continuously updated. In a replica both copies of the data are updated continuously. Modern snapshotting and journaling tech has added the possibility of hanging point in time copies off of your replicas, as in CDP. Those snaps and journaled writes can be used as backups, but your replica itself will always be consistent (or in async, near consistent) with your primary copy.
Those aren't replicas. They are point in time copies. Replicas are continually updated. What you were doing was backing up, apparently for DR purposes, which back then was probably your only DR option. Nowadays, backup is a poor DR solution for anything but very small shops with lax RPOs. That is the biggest problem with backup for DR. Disregarding the recovery time and resource drain, if I were to restore my main systems to the state of my last backup it would probably result in multiple deaths. Likewise, if I were to restore all my critical systems from backups to new hardware, the time it would take would put me out of business permanently. I don't know what your systems were doing, but odds are the RTO/RPO were a lot more forgiving back then. Shit, when I was a kid we used to have to turn the computer on before we fed our programs in. Nowadays our RPO is less than 5 minutes and our RTO is 24 hours. And that is forgiving compared to financial services companies.
I define it that way. EMC defines it that way. HP, IBM... Every major storage and backup hardware and software vendor works by these definitions. These are distinct concepts, of course they have distinct names. This whole argument is like when creationists say evolution is "just a theory." Well a theory is something very specific in science. Just because non-scientists use the words theory and hypothesis interchangeably does not make them the same thing.
They should offsite them if they need them to be disaster survivable. This is a low priority for me, because I do not use backups for DR purposes. A full complement of backups is a nice "to have" in my DR plan, but not a deal breaker. As it stands today I don't have the resources (tape or FTE) to duplicate my backups, so offsiteing means transporting originals. This adds time to restores and creates security problems. In my industry the security problems could mean jail time for me. Until I get fully off tape and have enough disk resources to do remote duplication of my backups or remote replication of their storage resources, offsiteing backups is a losing p
These distinctions are not arbitrary, they are purely empirical.
It becomes a backup as soon as you break the mirror of course. There is nothing fluid or undefined about that. It has stopped replicating and represents a point in time copy of your data, in other words a backup. The only arguable ambiguity there is between backup and archive. You could use that copy for archive purposes rather than backup ones. That is defined by the data access profile. In other words if you removed the original data and put the split mirror in a closet, you have created an archive. If you leave the original data in place, you have created a backup. Either way, you obviously no longer have a replica. You are lying to them them. Which might be fine if they are end users. But if they are in the storage business, they need to understand these concepts. Frankly your end users really should know too. In the situation you describe, you can't restore deleted data because you have no backup, only replicas. The end users should know that. Unless you are journaling writes of course, but you didn't say that. And what you describe certainly is replication. I never said replication had to be disk based. Array based replication is a pain. We do SAN based replication with journaled writes (combined CRR/CDP). Never taken any training; have no certificates. Just been in the business for ten years. You might want to follow your own advice. You are totally 100% wrong about these terms. I don't believe for a second that you "defined" these terms. This is very basic industry standard stuff. Although my shop is small (actually 147T not 100) it is quite well known and important in the industry (we are THE national IT leader in our vertical). I have a very close relationship with the folks who design the devices at several major vendors. Your statement that replication is a type of backup is just plain untrue and counterproductive.
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not a storage and backup professional. I am responsible, with one other person, for architecting and administering a medium sized SAN of about 100 Terabytes/300 servers. The SAN encompasses two data centers. One of my most difficult tasks is teaching the CIO the difference between backup, archive and replication, and the use cases for each. Most people, like yourself think that all data protection is backup.