• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose remote backup is the only option for something that destroys everything in the area, but raid is essential anyway.

    • UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      makes sense, I was hoping for a cheaper answer. Buying land (caz renting a server is the same as cloud storage isn’t it?) somewhere is probly expensive.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you know someone who lives somewhere else and also has a NAS, you can help each other by using each other for remote backup.

        • UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          sadly I don’t, now I need to talk this onto someone… I don’t even know who’d be interested. But great idea, needs a lot of administrative work tho. And also leaving an open (pwd protected, but still an open port) connection to a storage server 24-7 does not sound very safe.

    • koper@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      raid is essential anyway

      Why? If there are offsite backups that can be restored in an acceptable time frame, what’s still the point of RAID?

      • lazyslacker@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.