As the titled mentioned, is there anything that we should do to avoid undesirable life consequences?

  • cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always wondered, what scenario does 3-2-1 protect against, that 2-2-1 doesn’t? My hard disk dying and backblaze losing all my data at the same time?

    • blah@lemmy.1204.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you have an offsite copy of your files (and not in a sync service like Dropbox) you are already in a better position than most.

      Restoring from offsite takes time, even with Backblaze’s option of shipping a hard disk. You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden. It’s just not as convenient as local copies.

      A further copy that is locally available is simply a better strategy. Adding more copies after these two is not a bad idea but you start getting hit by the law of diminishing returns.

      You can actually read more about the 3-2-1 rule in a Backblaze post: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/

      • cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know about their blog post (theirs is actually one of the very few newsletters I subscribe to :D), and mostly it seems like a bit of convenience for a lot of inconvenience. A local backup would, well, require me to have a local backup for everything, so more hardware, more maintenance mostly for a faster restore? I guess if you have a lot of data to restore, that could be a worthy exchange?

        You may also have data corruption troubles, companies may close all of sudden.

        At exactly the same time as my local computer explodes. That’s what I mean, the extra security seems extremely tiny.