[buug] Trapped in Upgrade Hell

[f.johan.beisser]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Michael Paoli wrote:

> Ouch - I wouldn't recommend "upgrading" (if one can call it that)

perhaps "sidegrading"

> -backup, backup, backup; and periodically test backups and that one has
> everything necessary to do a full "cold metal" recovery; don't forget to
> cover off-site issues and it may be prudent to backup in manner(s) which
> give one more flexibility in recovery (e.g. to potentially significantly
> different hardware or configuration)

the problem here: backups are difficult to do for the average home user.
more on this later.

> I guess here I'm inclined to both agree and disagree, but perhaps it's
> semantics.  In any case, certainly doing a clean fresh install is
> typically faster and easier than doing a complex conversion/migration
> (which is really what was attempted - not an "upgrade" in the
> conventional sense).  Recoveries may or may not be fast - really depends
> a lot on what's involved, what one is recovering to, and what one is
> recovering from.

my assumption, though, is that the machine's a home box. home users
generally do not have the funding resources to keep good tape backups of
100gb of data.

> Well, for some cost/risk tradeoffs, that may be satisfactory.  It does
> have key drawbacks such as:

when rebuilding a machine, a simple harddrive can be used to back up user
data to. it costs less than a tape drive, and holds more than a cdr or
dvdr.

> -if there are only two hard drives, and something goes quite wrong
> during backup, all data may be lost

considering this guy was willing to risk the data doing something
difficult..

> Of course it's still better than no backup :-)

it's not really a backup at all, honestly. merely a way to recover the
data from after an upgrade, should it go wrong.

> Absolutely.  Still the best "general" solution (but not always the best
> cost/risk tradeoff for all scenarios).

it's also really expensive, unless you've got the cash. sadly, most people
don't.

my rant:

backups are expensive. not difficult, not all that hard to do at all, once
you have an idea of what's going on. the hard part, really, is finding the
funding for doing the backup.

most corparations that have valuable data do backups. they spend many tens
of thousands of dollars on hardware, tapes, and related equipment.

the price for this gear hasn't changed much in years. capasity has gone
up, and with it the price. a DLT tape 10 years ago cost $100. just one
tape.. a DLT tape is now about $60. the drive, though, will push around
$3000. more than the computer, monitor, hard drive, and most associated
periferals together. in fact, probably more than 3 times as much...

so, the home user, with their work files, brand spanking new 75 gb hard
drive.. can't properly back up this file, that game.. it sucks. cdroms
only hold 750mb of data, maybe 1500mb if it's highly compressed. dvdr
holds 4gb, 8 maybe.

backup media needs to be cheap and reliable enough. hard drives fit this,
especially since hitting the $1/gb mark. it's not perfect, but works "well
enough."



-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
	The other day I asked former Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton
        what he thought of our great victory over Iraq, and he
        said, "Mohammed Ali versus Mr. Rogers."
		-- kurt vonnegut, 5.9.03