On Saturday 09 February 2008, Craig White wrote: > we all see things through our own lenses and mathematically it is > impractical to consider backing up 1,000 units in 4.5 unit chunks when > so many other mechanisms exist that can chunk in much larger increments. That was up to the OP to decide, not the folks on this list. Giving a 'well, this tool, scdbackup, will do what you want, but backing up 1TB on 4.5GB disks isn't really practical' is much more helpful and much less confrontational. No? It took me all of one minute to get the google string right to find this tool. > Clearly it is not unusual to get > the answers that he got simply because our lenses always consider > practicality and his question didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't > at all concerned with practicality. If someone asks about backing up 1TB of data to 4.5GB disks, I am going to make the assumption until proven wrong that they really do know what they are asking. Now, when or if they prove that they really didn't know what they were asking the situation changes. But 'practicality' is in the eye of the beholder (in which case, a 'lens' is an adroit analogy). As one of my favorite quotes goes, 'there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.' Or, in geekspeak, ASCII stupid question, getty stupid ANSI. Or something like that. But just suppose the OP had ready access to free or nearly free DVDs and free or nearly free labor? Is it practical then? > I did suggest bacula because I know it is capable of doing what he asked > but I can't in all honesty suggest that it is a practical solution to > backing up a 1 Tb of data onto DVD's. He did correct to 50GB, which is practical (IMO) for infrequent DVD-based backup, being twelve DVDs or so. Bacula is a good solution as well; I suggested scdbackup simply because it is simple and can chunk the files so that each individual DVD is readable without being in a set, if need be. > Perhaps you are confusing the notion that those who answered his > question with practical assertions were demonstrating concern over the > premise of practicality and not arrogance. It is arrogant IMHO to assume that my practicality is the same as yours, regardless of whether it is my assumption or yours. YMMV. For example, it is very practical for me to use racks with bottom ventilation here; but that only works because I have 30,000 square feet of raised floor and the tonnage to cool it. Others would find bottom-vent RFI-resistant racks unsuitable, no doubt. Another example: it is extremely practical for most companies to use something like a Cisco 7921G to meet wide area mobile VoIP telephony requirements. But not PARI. We are working on an interferometer system for our two 26 meter radio telescopes that will be observing in the 2.2-2.3GHz range; bye-bye 802.11b/g/n. In fact, radio telescopy (a key part of our core business) eliminates BlueTooth and other wireless solutions, too. Practicality is in the eye of the beholder. -- Lamar Owen www.pari.edu
