| 1 |
On 10/27/2014 05:24 AM, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm starting a new thread so as to not hijack the one about alternative |
| 3 |
> kernels, but continue with something Volker raised. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Sunday 26 Oct 2014 23:25:50 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> as others have written already: ssd. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> With a caveat: if an ssd dies, it will die suddenly. Without a warning. |
| 10 |
>> Usually 5 minutes before the start of your weekly or monthly backup run. |
| 11 |
>> And that is first hand experience. |
| 12 |
> I haven't yet started using SSD and have wondered what sort of a system should |
| 13 |
> I set up to guard against such instantaneous catastrophic failures. I am |
| 14 |
> interested to hear what strategies people deploy to avoid data loss with SSDs, |
| 15 |
> especially on laptops that don't have the luxury of raid redundancy. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
All the data I have on my laptop is either: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* Version Controlled |
| 20 |
* Rsync'd from a server |
| 21 |
* Not important |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
My laptop doesn't have an SSD, but it's old and probably about ready to |
| 24 |
die in general. All of my documents are version controlled - git - and |
| 25 |
therefore "automatically" backed up. I rsync other files around, like my |
| 26 |
music and some software, so that's all backed up as well. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> With spinning drives I use tar and rsync at regular intervals. There have |
| 30 |
> been a few rare cases where a drive failed without prior notice - the last one |
| 31 |
> after a reboot. In such cases I am prepared to live with the risk of some |
| 32 |
> data loss, on machines where raid is not an option. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
afaik tar and rsync should continue to work for SSDs. The more places |
| 35 |
the data is in, the better. If you regularly rsync text (say /etc), I |
| 36 |
would consider version control. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Alec |
Archives