[tech] Burner vs. Diablo 2 (Re: [ucc] AGM Minutes)

[David Manchester]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:34:07PM +0800, Nick Bannon wrote:
> You're putting a lot of effort into finding things to object to. ::-(
> 
> Do you agree that a CD burner in the UCC is useful for more than just
> filez?
> 
> If so, do you agree that a fast and convenient one is, generally
> speaking, better than a slow and inconvenient one?
> 
> You might very well disagree about whether it's worth money or effort
> to improve the current setup, but that's a separate matter.

I would suggest that the UCC already has a CD burner.
I would suggest that its already perfectly adequate for backing up
people's homedirectories.
I would suggest that people buy their own damned CD-R if they think
that the UCC's is too slow.
I don't think that having a CD-R in the clubroom is as much of a
drawcard as the committee thought it would be when it waso originally
purchased.


> On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 10:17:59PM +0800, David Manchester wrote:
> [...]
> > What does does it need fast ethernet for?
> > You're not burning over the wire... the burner's only 4x.
> > 
> > Why does it need so much disk?
> > If you're backing up home directories, no-one's going to have much
> > over 650MB, so where is the 9GB needed?
> 
> It's a bad idea to burn over the wire, so people need to put things on
> temporary disc instead. They probably want to transfer more stuff while
> the first one's burning and they need to have room to make an image from
> the second lot as well. Hence 2GB as a minimum.

Erm, how much stuff do you have in your home directory?
This is beginning to read a lot more like your want to use the CD-R
to create images of software you've downloaded.
Why not do it at home?

> For CD backup purposes, it's nice to make a partition's worth of images
> and then burn them over a period of days, deleting as you go. Hence
> 9GB. For tape backups it's nice to create archives on disk then stream
> them to tape. Hence 9GB.

Ah, so if you ever intend to back anything up, make sure you have at least
twice as much disk as you have data.
Makes perfect sense to me... 

> As for the fast ethernet - do you prefer transferring ISO images' worth
> of stuff over fast ethernet or standard ethernet?

Ah - here we go. Transferring ISO images.
So, we're not really talking home backups, we're talking about making the
latest Debian CD because we're too cheap to buy one.
(Speaking of which, I must return your LSL CDs one day RSN).
 
> The DDS-2 drive on morwong works.
> 
> It's good to have that confirmed.
> 
> > If you need to back things up in chunks larger than one CD, 
> > then use the 4mm drive. DDS-2 tapes are craploads cheaper than DLTs.
> 
> We already have enough tapes to do a backup or three - we don't need to
> buy any. People don't seem bothered enough to do a backup that spans
> tapes, whereas I know I would personally be willing to do a backup onto
> one suitably large tape. I also like DLTs. ::-)

No, we've got some tapes of dubious utility and condition.
Please put some decent tapes in it. I didn't donate it to see it destroyed.

> > Simon might remain in the UK.
> > I expect the DLT will go with him if he returns to collect his 
> > belongings.
> 
> I expect so. However, I'm happy to make use of it, while it's here, if
> we have everything we need to make it go. (Actually, we already do,
> over the network, anyway. Guess I should give it a shot)
> 
> If we need to restore a DLT and no longer have access to it, there's a
> number of drives on and off campus that are suitable.

Mmm. I'm glad I donated that DDS2 drive then. *sigh*

> [...]
> > I can't see how -any- of that makes a dedicated non-linux machine
> > less useful for home directory backups.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think I would say such a thing, or what home
> directory backups specifically have to do with it. It was a statement
> about why UNIX machines are good for manipulating filesystems.

No, linux machines.
Your argument seemed to be that linux had interesting filesystems which
made backups easier. I failed to find evidence for that.

> > Grates? At $12.00/year?
> [...]
> 
> Sure it does, even though it doesn't stop me from using CD-R's. I don't
> like throwing things away if I don't have to. <shrug> By that argument,
> all CD-RW's are worthless.

Hardly. What's wrong with archival copies?
I shouldn't need to explain to you that if you've already broken the file
and backed up the broken one -before- you realise it, then the backup is of
little use.

> (You might think that all CD-RW's are worthless, but it's been nice
> to create a test disc, realise that it's broken, and try again
> without throwing it away)

Seventy five cents.

D.
-- 
" I don't get mad.... I get stabby. "
- William "Fat Tony" Williams.