<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 09:52 -0500, Brian MacLeod wrote:<BR>
<BR>
For actively used files that I need backed up, I'm using Dropbox. I've
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
gone ahead and bought the 50GB account and am loving it. I like that
tying my work desktop (Mac, with Windows & CentOS VMs also tied to the
account), home desktop (Mac), work laptop (Mac), and personal laptop
(Fedora and Windows to make TSA happy) gives me quick access to my
important files even if I lose one of those machines, AND, if the
Dropbox service dies, the machines still have their copies of the data.
I've perused the website function, and can get a previous copy of a
file up to thirty days ago.
As for the more static/archival type of storage, I'm still working on
that. I have been thinking of setting up some type of distributed
system between my family in NY and here, especially since the fiancée
has a huge download habit (Vietnamese subtitled Asian programs).
Brian
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
Not to provoke any argument here; I've found it very useful to make very clear distinctions between personal data that is not anywhere else in the world, such as video, pictures, audio recordings the band has made, versus stuff that could readily be replaced, such as mp3 files of CD's which I own or my son owns. Or ISO files of the last dozen versions of Fedora or Ubuntu. Or the last year of Max Headroom. Or...<BR>
<BR>
Such as there are separate mount points for the crap that could readily be replaced. This cuts down on the volume immensely of what truly has to get backed up. <BR>
<BR>
In your case, isn't it slightly insane to be storing a backup in the cloud of stuff you fiancee has downloaded...from the cloud? <BR>
<BR>
Regards, <BR>
<BR>
Neal Rhodes<BR>
MNOP Ltd. <BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>