• JackGreenEarth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    910 months ago

    I suppose remote backup is the only option for something that destroys everything in the area, but raid is essential anyway.

    • @UnRelatedBurner
      link
      English
      310 months ago

      makes sense, I was hoping for a cheaper answer. Buying land (caz renting a server is the same as cloud storage isn’t it?) somewhere is probly expensive.

      • JackGreenEarth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        If you know someone who lives somewhere else and also has a NAS, you can help each other by using each other for remote backup.

        • @UnRelatedBurner
          link
          English
          210 months ago

          sadly I don’t, now I need to talk this onto someone… I don’t even know who’d be interested. But great idea, needs a lot of administrative work tho. And also leaving an open (pwd protected, but still an open port) connection to a storage server 24-7 does not sound very safe.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      raid is essential anyway

      Why? If there are offsite backups that can be restored in an acceptable time frame, what’s still the point of RAID?

      • lazyslacker
        link
        English
        310 months ago

        I’d say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.