Tech myth debunk thread

[WkdPaul]

40 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But raid is still a type of backup. Theres literally no way to deny that raid is a type of backup.

You said nobody stated reasons as to why RAID isn't a backup, I stated a few of them and you're completely dismissing my points ... because reasons?

 

As I said, RAID isn't a backup solution, like at all. It's a redundancy. If a drives fails you can quickly get back to to work. It's completely different.

 

That's why it's a myth ; RAID ≠ backup.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

My definition of backup is the one in the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup

 

Not sure how me using the literal definition of backup is adding to confusion.

If anything. you changing the definition of backup would be confusing to people.

Again, RAID = Redundant Array of Independent Disks

 

If YOU are using disks in RAID as a backup, that's fine, but it's NOT a backup solution. It's redundancy, in case the drive fails.

 

Also, drive failure is one possible cause of data corruption, a backup is supposed to protect you from that, a RAID array doesn't because even if it has safe guards against data corruption, it's not a backup solution.

 

You can argue all you want, it's still won't change that fact.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, wkdpaul said:

It's a redundancy.

Any form of backup is a redundancy.

 

2 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

If a drives fails you can quickly get back to to work. It's completely different.

Which would constitute a form of local backup.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

My definition of backup is the one in the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup

 

Not sure how me using the literal definition of backup is adding to confusion.

If anything. you changing the definition of backup would be confusing to people.

Actually, you are the one changing the definitions.

 

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Any form of backup is a redundancy.

 

Which would constitute a form of local backup.

You are also playing a semantics game.

 

Frankly, I'm tired of arguing with people whose minds are closed so I'll just close with some links to sites that explain the difference between redundancy and backups and why redundancy is not a backup. If you two continue to choose to ignore what experts have said, well, good luck, you'll need it.

 

https://www.howtogeek.com/346907/backups-vs.-redundancy-what’s-the-difference/

https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/5958-raid-is-not-a-backup-system

https://blog.macrium.com/raid-is-not-backup-abaf74974fea

http://www.petemarovichimages.com/2013/11/24/never-use-a-raid-as-your-backup-system/

https://serverfault.com/questions/2888/why-is-raid-not-a-backup

https://blog.storagecraft.com/5-reasons-raid-not-backup/

 

 

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

My definition of backup is the one in the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup

 

Not sure how me using the literal definition of backup is adding to confusion.

If anything. you changing the definition of backup would be confusing to people.

 

I don't think your argument works, not even semantically.    As most raid arrays do not copy the data to anywhere and seeing as "copy" is an inescapable defining condition of "backup" it does not work.     Being able to recreate the data on one drive in an array of drives designed to do so using an algorithm is not the same as making a copy of data.   The only thing a raid and a back up have in common is they both hold data.   Using that common component to insinuate they are the same thing is erroneous.

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I don't think your argument works, not even semantically. 

Arguing pure semantics, RAID 1 is a local backup. Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

 

Arguing connotation (outside a microcosm of techies), RAID 1 is a local backup.

 

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

 

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

[amdorintel]

On 6/28/2019 at 5:53 PM, Boinbo said:

Debunking the myth water-cooling is better, should have posted that first

All in one water coolers arent better then a good air cooler.

[Tamesh16]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

DO delete files by accident

i did once accidentally delete a file from my back up drive one, and it was large folder so it didnt even go to recycle, lost some pictures, 

but i keep a one drive back up of all my pictures and other memories so i didnt lose much 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

21 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Arguing pure semantics, RAID 1 is a local backup. Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

 

Arguing connotation (outside a microcosm of techies), RAID 1 is a local backup.

 

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

 

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

Obviously, you did not read any of the sites I linked.

[Drak3]

Just now, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Obviously, you did not read any of the sites I linked.

Why waste my time?

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, The Torrent said:

what about when applications are run at weird scales like 150 percent? As they sometimes seem blurry. For example, a 17inch laptop i used to have 1440p display would sometimes display some burry things which werent used to 1440p and 150 percent scaling.Whats going on then?

See that's the thing, I don't have the monitor's doing the scaling, it's Windows doing the scaling (via the GPU). So in theory anything run within the 4K desktop has the HiDPI scaling, and that just then gets scaled down to the cloned screen.

 

This is just one of "did you this is a thing" that I've been doing since Win98. Back in Win98 I used to do something on AMD cards that would create a virtual desktop without any other software. So the screen would be like 1024x768 but the actual desktop area was 1920x1080. Moving the mouse cursor to the edge of the desktop would move the virtual desktop. I haven't bothered with it for years.

 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Arguing pure semantics, RAID 1 is a local backup. Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

 

 

It's not a backup. A backup has the ability to be restored, to an earlier time, like before you accidentally rm -rf. rm -rf your raid array and it's erased and unrecoverable, regardless of what RAID mode you used.

 

At best, RAID, when you have at least 5 drives, gives you redundancy in case a drive fails, so you can keep on working until you replace the drive. It's a productivity solution. If you have 5 independent drives with different data on them, and you accidentally kick the desktop and that kills one of the drives, you're not recovering that, where as a striped RAID array would. As most desktops don't have a BBU, most desktop raid is worthless without a UPS.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

It's not a backup.

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

At best, RAID, when you have at least 5 drives, gives you redundancy in case a drive fails

These two statements contradict each other.

 

As I've said before:

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

 

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

 

So far, you and three other guys have screeched "RAID's not a backup!" with no substantive arguments. Just lame excuses and """expert""" opinions (that are no more valid than asking random people on the street).

But by actual definition, it is. If we ignore the microcosm of arrogant elitists, connotation is that RAID 1 is a type of backup. And one of the smartest members of the forum already made the distinction you're to ignorant to realize: backup does not inherently and exclusively apply to remote data backup.

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

These two statements contradict each other.

 

As I've said before:

 

So far, you and three other guys have screeched "RAID's not a backup!" with no substantive arguments. Just lame excuses and """expert""" opinions (that are no more valid than asking random people on the street).

But by actual definition, it is. If we ignore the microcosm of arrogant elitists, connotation is that RAID 1 is a type of backup. And one of the smartest members of the forum already made the distinction you're to ignorant to realize: backup does not inherently and exclusively apply to remote data backup.

You're really digging in your heels there. OK. do this. Eject one of your RAID drives and then format the system. Tell me how that goes for you.

[Drak3]

Just now, Kisai said:

You're really digging in your heels there. OK. do this. Eject one of your RAID drives and then format the system. Tell me how that goes for you.

I don't run RAID.

 

Nor is that the type of system failure RAID 1 covers. It's a backup system that covers a disk failure. I've said that, multiple times.

[Kisai]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I don't run RAID.

 

Nor is that the type of system failure RAID 1 covers. It's a backup system that covers a disk failure. I've said that, multiple times.

So you're trying to tell people who operate RAID systems that RAID is a back up, when clearly, RAID is not a backup because the office I do work at has several RAID systems and yet has a Tape backup system because clearly whoever is responsible for IT in the mult-billion dollar corporation knows RAID is not a backup. They have a dude come in every week to rotate the backup tapes and take them to some secure facility. 

 

RAID is not a backup, and pretending it is, is going to cost such naive people a lot of time and money when they lose everything.

[amdorintel]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

yet has a Tape backup system because clearly whoever is responsible for IT in the mult-billion dollar corporation knows RAID is not a backup.

ouch that is taking a long long leep my friend.

 

tape is like so old, so so old

[WkdPaul]

Just now, amdorintel said:

tape is like so old, so so old

Yes, but it's still relevant and is used daily for mid / long term backups.

[Drak3]

Just now, Kisai said:

So you're trying to tell people who operate RAID systems that RAID is a back up, when clearly, RAID is not a backup because the office I do work at has several RAID systems and yet has a Tape backup system because clearly whoever is responsible for IT in the mult-billion dollar corporation knows RAID is not a backup. They have a dude come in every week to rotate the backup tapes and take them to some secure facility. 

 

RAID is not a backup, and pretending it is, is going to cost such naive people a lot of time and money when they lose everything.

How about reading all of my comments? Hell, read the one before the last one I made:

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup.

 

I have acknowledged, time and time again, that RAID 1 is not a comprehensive backup. I've said that RAID 1 is only useful as a basic backup for drive failure and nothing more.

 

And I don't give a shit about the specifics of your company's backup system. It's irrelevant. It doesn't counter anything I've said. It doesn't build on the argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than a weak appeal to authority to weasel your way out.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Arguing pure semantics, RAID 1 is a local backup. Any form of backup is redundant, and every redundancy is a backup, as in this context, they're synonyms.

 

Arguing connotation (outside a microcosm of techies), RAID 1 is a local backup.

 

RAID 1 is a setup where data is cloned between two drives, so that they act as reserves to each other if one fails.

 

You can say RAID 1 is not a robust or comprehensive backup. That it only protects from drive failure. But it is a backup. Trying to redefine the word because you don't like the idea of RAID as a backup (or don't understand how RAID can be an effective piece of a comprehensive backup system) isn't going to change anything, as the term "backup" has well understood meaning in many other areas of life. The only thing you're really doing is creating unnecessary confusion and forcing a divide that isn't there.

 

You are not backing up your files with a raid array, you are only making a specific drive failure redundant.  Any issue with files, software or user error and your data is not backed up.  If you cannot recover your data due to the type of system you employ then it is not backed up.    Raid is not a backup, trying to call it one using loose semantics doesn't make it so.   Backing up something literally means (by all definitions making a copy in the event of data loss, mirroring does not prevent data loss therefore it is not a back up.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

So far, you and three other guys have screeched "RAID's not a backup!" with no substantive arguments. Just lame excuses and """expert""" opinions (that are no more valid than asking random people on the street).

Actually, we have given you substantive arguments. And how do know if the links I gave are not valid when you couldn't be bothered to read them?

 

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

How about reading all of my comments? Hell, read the one before the last one I made:

How about reading the links I gave you? Heck, if I wanted to, I could come up with far more of them, all saying essentially the same thing but then you would claim TLDR.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

8 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

tape is like so old, so so old

Yes, it's positively ancient. However, it's still a very valid form of long term archival which can be used as a backup, albeit cumbersome. It's mostly used by big businesses mostly due to the expense of the hardware used. To be cost effectivve, it has be used on a large scale (the tapes themselves are not very expensive).

[Lady Fitzgerald]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And I don't give a shit about the specifics of your company's backup system. It's irrelevant

Actually, it is relevant. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

you are only making a specific drive failure redundant.

That would be a type of backup. You have dedicated a set of drives to being local and live backups of each other.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Any issue with files, software or user error and your data is not backed up

That's true of any backup system. NAS and versioned libraries are not failsafe either.

 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

acking up something literally means (by all definitions making a copy in the event of data loss, mirroring does not prevent data loss therefore it is not a back up.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backup

Quote

3 : a copy of computer data (such as a file or the contents of a hard drive)

I made a backup copy of the file.

also : the act or an instance of making a backup

 

3 : to make a copy of (a computer file or data) to protect against accidental loss or corruption

Be sure to back up your work.

also : to make copies of all the files on (a device) a program that automatically backs up your hard drive

These are the two relevant definitions. A drive failure results in the practical data loss of that drive.

RAID 1 is a mirror arrangement where the purpose is that data is not lost if a drive fails. By both definitions, RAID 1 is a form of backup. A scenario specific backup.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundant

Quote

3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (such as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

And here's the most applicable definition of redundant.

Any backup exists as duplicate data to get a system running again. Different types of backups do so in different capacities. RAID 1 enables a system to be restored with little downtime in the event of a drive failure. That's what it's good for, that's what it should be used for. It's redundant, as every backup system is, by definition.

 

[amdorintel]

I remember my networking teacher in college, we went to one of his companies in the downtown core that he was a consultant for. just because he worked for them doesn't mean he is right, just means he got hired over someone else. also salary doesnt matter either in knowledge base. because the other fella across the street may do things differently, and both are trillion dollar companies. i think its a matter of how much one system costs over the other, is one more labor intensive and what ever other factors, now those could be calculated and adhered to or something just randomly picked by some "expert"  can view it like a court case, defence can get an expert recognized in the field to say the sky is red, while the prosecutions expert can say the sky is brown. both are experts, both get paid $1M/yr and both have phd's in sky color. its just going back to my previous post, where i had to laugh. but reading up on tape technology, LTO-8 is quite amazing, tape tech is relevant today I learned, its pretty amazing how much data it can hold, and how it can be compressed.

 

https://www.overlandstorage.com/blog/?p=323&p=323

Spoiler

With the amount of data being stored continuing to grow exponentially, tape offers some inherent advantages over disk-based technologies for long-term data storage, including:

1. High capacity: LTO tape cartridges can now store up to 6.25TB on a single tape.  With Overland Storage’s NEO library, companies can now store over 6PB in less than 14 sq. ft. of data center floor space.
2. Fast performance:  Data can now be retrieved in a matter of seconds or just a few minutes with the ability to move data at speeds of over 1TB/hr. per tape drive.
3. Lower cost per GB: At an average cost of $.01/GB, tape storage is the most affordable option for storing massive amounts of data.
4. Reduced energy costs: Studies repeatedly show that tape drives use less power and generate less heat than disk drives, resulting in energy costs that are 1/15th that of disk.
5. Portability:  Tape is still the only medium on which you can reliably store data and move it offsite for disaster recovery purposes
6. Greater reliability:  The error rate of tape technology is superior to that of disk; in addition, tape is immune to some of the pitfalls that disk is subject to (e.g., viruses), providing more reliable access to all of the data companies are storing long-term.
7. Better longevity:  The physics of tape technology enable companies to extend its storage capacities far beyond what the physics of disk technologies will allow – making tape an ongoing data storage solution for the long haul.
8. Scalability:  Not only do individual tapes gives users the ability to scale their storage capacity due to high capacities and backward read compatibility, but also tape libraries like Overland’s NEO Series allow users’ data storage solutions to scale with their demands and not be outstripped by them.  Tape allows you to grow into – not out of – your data storage requirements.
9. Compatibility:  The combination of tape’s superior backward read compatibility and the fact that all major ISV applications (such as BackupExec, NetBackup, ARCserve, etc.) provide widespread support of tape-based storage results in the best possible return on investment.
10. Good Enough For Google, Good Enough For You – In 2011, Google made headlines when it had to use tape to restore the email boxes of 40,000 users. With performance increasing significantly and storage capacities growing, companies will continue to rely on tape for offsite backup and disaster recovery.

 

 

i was going to go to wikipedia on raid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

Quote

RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks^[1] or Drives, or Redundant Array of Independent Disks) is a data storage virtualization technology that combines multiple physical disk drive components into one or more logical units for the purposes of data redundancy, performance improvement, or both.

 

[Kisai]

33 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

ouch that is taking a long long leep my friend.

 

tape is like so old, so so old

https://www.quantum.com/tape

 

Still new.

https://iq.quantum.com/exLink.asp?6420535OR59W85I38315920&DS00383A&view=1

12TB tapes.

 

Also, stupidly expensive IMO. It's a pity that there's no real alternative to tape, though flash media might actually get there for short-term backups (eg 1-5 years.) You'd want to re-copy the drives every 5 years just to ensure they still have a retention charge, and then you only want to do that by copying old drives to new ones. So going back to the idea as RAID as backup, As a "mechanism" for creating a backup, in theory you could if you keep cycling out drives, but you'd have to cycle out the entire array, so you would waste lots of time, energy and money trying to find "that thing" and it wouldn't be forensically viable either since merely trying to access the drive would change the data on it.

 

So in an ideal situation, what you want is to be able to "snapshot" a drive by having a paired drive that is constantly in sync, and then, let's say at the end of the week, you rotate that paired drive with another and let the system "rebuild" the array. Better hope you don't accidentally put the wrong drive in and rebuild the array using the old drive's data instead of the current drive. In practice however, it's extremely doubtful anyone ever managed to recover a system using only one drive in a two drive (RAID 1) system, what instead happens is that the system boots up in a degraded mode, and shortly thereafter the second drive fails and everything is lost. Hence, you need more than one drive if you're trying to use it as a "backup" mechanic. You might be able to recover if you bought the same model of drive but from different retailers so that you didn't get the same production date.

 

My roommate, I did recover her two-drive system (it was a RAID system as well) because she was smart and didn't continue to use the machine when it said the drive array was crashed. Just purchased a new drive. Is that a Backup you say? Only if you're lucky and at the machine when it happens. Most people, will ignore boot-up warnings because people have been trained to ignore idiot lights.

 

I even have a short story about the other side of this. So one of my clients, bought two backup systems. It came with specific drives just large enough to backup their two primary systems. One day BOTH backup systems went down. "But they had RAID!" you might say. Yeah, they did, and what happened is the OEM put drives from the same batches in both machines, and all 4 drives blew up within hours of each other after running for about a year. I hope I'm remembering this correctly. At any rate I had to order 4 more drives (these were 1U systems) with larger drives. And reinstall the OS, and redo the configuration on those machines from scratch since they backup data from another machine.