Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:35:53 -0700
M and D wrote:
Thanks, Ken. I'm all set now.
You're welcome. Glad to help.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OPm0DfRsGHA.4956@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
M and D wrote:
I've often read, in these boards and elsewhere, that one of the
reasons for not storing backups on your computer's internal hard
drive - even a second internal hard drive - is because 'it's not a
question of if your hard drive will fail, but when.'
No, that's not a reason for where you put your backups, that's a
reason for making sure you *do* backups regularly.
I don't quite understand the logic behind this, and here's why:
1) If I store my backups on my external hard drive...well, that's
also a hard drive. And if I store my backups on a network...well,
that too is a hard drive.
Yes, but if the likelihood of one hard drive failing is x, the
likelihood of both hard drives, not in the same machine, failing
simultaneously is X^2. And since x is a number much smaller than 1,
x^2 is a tiny nuimber indeed.
You can never reduce the risk to zero, but you can reduce it a
number small enough that most of don't have to worry about it.
2) I've been reading for years that hard drives are getting more and
more reliable, to the point where the chances of a drive failing on
its own are very, very small.
No, not true. The chances of a drive failing on its own are nort
small at all--just the opposite. It's *certain* that every drive
will fail on its own. A hard drive is a mechanical device. *All*
mechanical drives have wear-associated problems, and they all fail
sooner or later.
The only question is *when* it will fail. True, drives are more
reliable than they used to be, and they do typically last longer.
Nevertheless sooner or later they will fail. Although average time
to failure is pretty long these days, averages don't count when
protecting your data; some drives fail sooner and some take longer
to fail. You need to protect yourself against the possibility of
yours failing sooner. If your data is important to you, trusting a
drive to not fail, and not backing it up, is foolhardy.
Moreover even if the drive itself doesn't fail, user error, virus
attacks, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, etc., can
cause the loss of your data. That's why you need to proretect
yourself with backups.
And from what I've read, hard drives
are a much more reliable (and longer lasting) medium than are CDs or
DVDs.
Nope, that's simply not true. But even if it were true, it's
irrelevant. The chances of an original and a backup failing
simultaneously are always much smaller than either failing alone,
and that's why you back up.
To my understanding, the reason for not storing backups on the same
computer is to safeguard against the relatively more likely
possibility that some external cause (viruses, theft, lightening
strike, etc.) will make the computer unusable. Is this correct?
Yes, but it's not a question of making the computer unusable, it's a
question of having the drive disappear--either physically (via
theft, fire, etc.) or just its contents lost (virus attack,
lihghtning, etc.).
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
.
- References:
- Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- From: M and D
- Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- From: M and D
- Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- Prev by Date: Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- Next by Date: Re: Disk thrashes even with tons of RAM. Why?
- Previous by thread: Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- Next by thread: Re: Not Storing Backups on an Internal HDD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|