 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Fanfoot :
My iPod is 160GB. It is nearly full. It has music, photos and videos on it that I would not want to lose under any circumstances. Ok. Fair enough. I bet your iPod doesn't get 160GB of new content constantly though. I bet a good portion stays the same for some lengthly period of time so it really don't have to be backed up from scratch.
Every so often I switch computers. The way Carbonite works right now is I abandon the old backups and do new ones. Or at least this is what happened last year when I did this. I don't believe Carbonite allows you to restore a full system from their service. You have to have at least a functional system first before restoring files, don't you? So you really only need to backup what is essentially your "data" files. You shouldn't have to restart your file set. Besides, when you discard an old backup, isn't that leaving you vulnerable until a new backup is complete?
So... 160GB of data to be backed up at 2Mbps would take what, 640,000 seconds, or 177 days or about SIX MONTHS to back up. Actually, that would be about 177 hours or a little over 7 days. Math's hard I know.
And during this time my data won't be protected. Even if you had a 10mbit connection, your data wouldn't be protected for 1.5 days. The safest thing would have been to leave your existing file set backed up until you completed your new one and verified it was valid, then delete the old one. That way you would never have to be without a backup in case something should happen to it. But under that method you really wouldn't be limited to any time limit as you'd always be protected, so I can see why you went with that way to support your argument. A wise person with limited bandwidth would have probably just backed up the changed files to begin with, which is how carbonite works by default, isn't it?
So if I upgrade my computer every 2 years, my data will only be protected 75% of the time at BEST.
And its just "C-R-A-Z-Y" for anybody to want more than 2Mbps? No, but it's c-r-a-z-y to base an entire argument on a miscalculation. Plus I never said there was NO need for it, just that 2 or 3 mbits is ADEQUATE for an overwhelming majority of customers.
You know how stupid you're going to sound in a few years right crdu? Pot. Kettle. Black. Before calling people stupid, check your own posts. But also consider that I may actually have some intelligence. I didn't seem to have too much problem making it through college with a comp sci degree. Sure the future may be drastically different, but I don't think so. I predict that there will be the same proportional gap between the upload and download speeds as what there is now. But my crystal ball has been a little fuzzy lately. I haven't upgraded to the new hidef ball yet.
How about you post your real name so we can all make fun of you when the future shows up? Sure. Chris Drudge. Never have kept it a secret. But calling someone out when you yourself are an anonymous coward. I've been around here a few years and plan on being around for a few more. Feel free to come back any time and we can chat about who was right and who was wrong. |
1 edit | reply to Fanfoot
said by Fanfoot :
So... 160GB of data to be backed up at 2Mbps would take what, 640,000 seconds, or 177 days or about SIX MONTHS to back up. And during this time my data won't be protected. And that's assuming my connection is perfect and I don't use it for anything else.
So if I upgrade my computer every 2 years, my data will only be protected 75% of the time at BEST.
Actually about 7 days, not 177.
(edit) CDRU beat me to it....faster at math I guess!
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? |
