If you have an offsite copy of your files (and not in a sync service like Dropbox) you are already in a better position than most.
Restoring from offsite takes time, even with Backblaze’s option of shipping a hard disk. You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden. It’s just not as convenient as local copies.
A further copy that is locally available is simply a better strategy. Adding more copies after these two is not a bad idea but you start getting hit by the law of diminishing returns.
I know about their blog post (theirs is actually one of the very few newsletters I subscribe to :D), and mostly it seems like a bit of convenience for a lot of inconvenience. A local backup would, well, require me to have a local backup for everything, so more hardware, more maintenance mostly for a faster restore? I guess if you have a lot of data to restore, that could be a worthy exchange?
You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden.
At exactly the same time as my local computer explodes. That’s what I mean, the extra security seems extremely tiny.
3-2-1
3 copies of data
2 different storage medium
1 set of data at an off-site location
Commonly refered by the sailors as “one spouse in each port”
Way to just stereotype my profession… Even though it’s true with some guys! Hahaha
I always wondered, what scenario does 3-2-1 protect against, that 2-2-1 doesn’t? My hard disk dying and backblaze losing all my data at the same time?
If you have an offsite copy of your files (and not in a sync service like Dropbox) you are already in a better position than most.
Restoring from offsite takes time, even with Backblaze’s option of shipping a hard disk. You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden. It’s just not as convenient as local copies.
A further copy that is locally available is simply a better strategy. Adding more copies after these two is not a bad idea but you start getting hit by the law of diminishing returns.
You can actually read more about the 3-2-1 rule in a Backblaze post: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/
I know about their blog post (theirs is actually one of the very few newsletters I subscribe to :D), and mostly it seems like a bit of convenience for a lot of inconvenience. A local backup would, well, require me to have a local backup for everything, so more hardware, more maintenance mostly for a faster restore? I guess if you have a lot of data to restore, that could be a worthy exchange?
At exactly the same time as my local computer explodes. That’s what I mean, the extra security seems extremely tiny.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Fair enough, though I trust Backblaze more than myself, there ;)
deleted by creator