LMV Snapshots

[Tom Buskey]

On 11/17/06, Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
> [1] Funny how when you're running out of it, "disk space is cheap",
>     but when you want to plan for stability, performance, and disaster,
>     "it costs too much" :)

True.  RAID5 instead of RAID0 takes too much disk until a disk
crashes.  Then $5k to try to recover that data looks attractive :-(

> [2] I'm wondering how many digits can be added to RAID levels before
>     some marketing weenie come up for snazzy and descriptive name for
>     it that really doesn't describe at all what's going on, but makes
>     you want to buy it anyway :) I envision RAID levels getting to
>     look like: RAID 016+501+3+1.  At which point we'll just give up
>     and add them all together and call it RAID 521, which is
>     completely deceptive :)

Don't forget letters!  Solaris' ZFS has RAID Z instead of RAID 5 and
RAID Z2 instead of RAID 6 (2 disks can fail w/o losing data).

Eventually we'll be doing octal ala chmod.

>
> [3] The *truly* paranoid completely eschew all this technology and
>     write things down on paper in invisible ink in a double-secret
>     encryption scheme and lock it all away in their underground bunker
>     where we have rations for 100+ years.

Or DoD where you close off the room w/ a guard outside but still use
telnet, rsh, rlogin and don't "allow" users to run tcpdump.  And a USB
thumbdrive with nuclear data turns up in a trailer of a former
employee.