NAK

joined 1 year ago
[–] NAK@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.

Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

By definition a disaster recovery solution needs to be geographically separate. You're protecting yourself from catastrophe, and some of those scenarios include your main location burning down, flooding, being hit by a tornado, etc etc.

So you either need to collocate systems with a friend who you trust, purchase colocation services from a provider, or use a cloud service to achieve what you're looking for to truly have a DR solution.

As far as how to do that, the main idea is to have that point in time available on a system that, even if you get compromised, the backups won't. The old school method here is to use an external hard drive or a tape device, and physically store that offsite. So like use your regular backup mechanism, and in addition to what it's doing now schedule a daily/weekly/monthly job that backs up to this other device, and then store that away from your main location.

That's essentially the idea though, and there are any number of solutions you can use to do it.

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What cloud backup solution are you using? A lot of them offer additional protection that would keep a history of your files. You can essentially say "once a week create a point in time recovery of all my files" and then you could recover your files from that point in time.

This usually costs extra, and it makes sense why. They're essentially keeping extra copies of your data for you.

How that is configured allows you to determine your RPO, or recovery point objective.

https://www.imperva.com/learn/availability/recovery-point-objective-rpo/

So you can decide how much data you're comfortable losing by determining how often those point in time recovery events happen.

Did that make sense?

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.

Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.

Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.

Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you're accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.

The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.

Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you're looking for is disaster recovery.

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

You're right. I'm sorry

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Because that's a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn't apparent to whoever is reading this then it's really not worth the conversation

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

When the response to my question of "what do you think is better" is an esoteric shout out to a culture that's been dead for thousands of years, that isn't even in the first page of Google results for "six nations" yeah. You're right. It's not a good faith argument

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Ok. Let's switch to six nations.

That definitely answers my question

[–] NAK@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

That's zero sum thinking.

If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.

You can't have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That's per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.

So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?

[–] NAK@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.

Communism Stan's be Stanning

[–] NAK@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like

view more: next ›