On 2017-04-11 12:57, Michael Tiernan wrote:
> On 4/11/17 3:41 PM, jdow wrote:
>> So I suppose the extended downtime while several terabytes of data are
>> restored after it's loss due to filesystem malfunction is of no consequence to
>> you.
> While not trying to dowse the fire with gasoline, I'd like to remind folks that
> data loss isn't the only problem, data corruption is also a problem.
>
> Oh, and while one's trying to manipulate serveral terabytes of data, the system
> slowing to a crawl because of excessive thrashing or fs overhead is also bad.

The reduced utility and accessibility of the data being tested and restored is 
the sticky point as I see it. This can be a serious cost. Having dozens of 
backups is fine. If none of the backups are online on different disks available 
to take over the load while the main server's data is restored, you find 
yourself dead in the water for however long it takes to test and restore two or 
three digit number of Terabytes. (I wonder how NSA handles this in their new 
data center....)

{^_^}