<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Adam Chlipala <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:adam@chlipala.net" target="_blank">adam@chlipala.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im">
On 09/03/2012 12:23 PM, Steve Killen wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">So we currently do backups with <a href="http://rsync.net" target="_blank">rsync.net</a> for ~$60/mo. I just ran across
Amazon Glacier:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/" target="_blank">http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/</a><br>
<br>
It's $0.01/GB a month.<br>
<br>
I'm just spitballing to get the conversation started, but off the cuff
it seems worth looking into to reduce our backup costs--how much data
are we maintaining with rsync?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't even know if a working, reasonable back-up regime is in place
at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if that slipped by the wayside
during various upgrades.<br>
<br>
A regular process for testing the integrity of back-up data would be
great; I don't think we ever had one.<br>
</div>
<br></blockquote><div><br>FWIW, I've seen Clinton restore data for a few users over the last several months, so that's at least a spot-check. But I agree, an actual, thoroughgoing backup effectiveness policy is a better idea than just hoping it keeps working. :)<br clear="all">
</div></div><br>-- <br>Steven F. Killen <<a href="mailto:steven.f.killen@gmail.com" target="_blank">steven.f.killen@gmail.com</a>><br>| elvestinkle @ twitter<br>| <a href="http://pursuing.calefaction.org" target="_blank">pursuing.calefaction.org</a><br>
<br>Etsi provectus in sententiis sis<br>Esse parvulus in spiritus debes<br>