I mean, get a SL8500 - only 2.1 Petabytes of tape backup space!
You misread a comma as a decimal. With filled-out slots, the library can hold 2,100PB, or 2.1 exabyte. Or, the equivalent of over half a million 4TB hard drives.
>We have two of these at work, and with just 3000 slots each and not the biggest tape drives, they can each store around 15PB.
Actually, none of the 25TB worth of stored movies I've got were downloaded. All of it was ripped from media and compressed.
Unless you aren't compressing very much from the original source, this means you have about 6,000 movies (2GB/hour, with an average movie being 2 hours).
I've got a few bins worth of media stored away
With 6,000 movies, your "few bins" would be a cube about 8 feet on each side, assuming standard DVD cases. And, it would also mean that you would spend over $3,000/year on movies (figuring $10/movie, and assuming you've been collecting since DVDs first came out). If you have been collecting for less time, or buy more expensive movies (Blu-Ray, special editions, at first release, etc.), then it would be closer to $5,000/year. Do you seriously spend $400/month on purchasing media?
An actually contemporary tape drive(and a machine capable of keeping it fed when it is running full bore) is Not Cheap; but the fleabay shit that is cheap tends to offer painfully mediocre capacity and unknown reliability. Disks, by contrast, have a cost of entry that basically starts at zero and scales more or less linearly with the number of disks
This is absolutely the best statement of this ever. Everyone who claims that tape is the One True Backup doesn't factor in the startup cost of $2-4K for a tape drive that can handle reasonably large capacity tapes, the hardware to connect it to a computer (many of these tape drives have fiber-channel as the only option), and then the cost of some kind of changer if you want any amount of automation.
For home use, hard drives are by far the cheapest and most convenient method, as long as you are in the less than 50TB world. If you aren't satisfied with hard drive reliability, back up your data twice, to two different drives. With 4TB drives selling for around $170, and backing up twice as I suggested, you don't reach the break-even point with tape (single backup) until you need to back up 15TB. With single backup to disk, the break-even is around 45TB.
20TB is not out of the world. With a RAID of 4TB disks you can cover that at home, and it doesn't need to be on all the time.
Sure, it's easy to have 20TB of usable disk space (I've got forty 2TB drives spread among 5 servers at my house), but 20TB of "must be backed up because that's the only copy" is a little unbelievable for a home user.
For example, I have 700 Blu-Ray movies that have been ripped and re-encoded to take about 2TB of disk space. If I had 30-40TB available, I might store the raw Blu-Ray images, but then I don't need backup, as the data is easy to re-create. So, I'm a little skeptical that the "friend" in TFS had 20TB data that he can't re-create by going back to original sources.
Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.
Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.
Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.
It sounds like the hack was only possible because personal data that should never have been anywhere near a public website wasn't properly controlled, so I don't have much sympathy for them on that score.
As far as being hacked compared to continued careless releases, the latter seems to deserve a harsher penalty, and the fines here do seem to reflect that. Isn't this what we want to happen?
It's worth noting that the fine for the charity here relates to disclosing personal data about nearly 10,000 individuals, so it worked out around £20 per victim, even though the nature of the breach is obviously quite serious.
In contrast, the bank released a lot of personal data but only about a much smaller number of individuals (it seems to be only in low double figures looking through the ICO's information more deeply, via a series of careless errors rather than one mass leak) so the fine per individual victim appears to have been much greater here, probably working out to £1,000s per victim.
I don't think those are the places distributing their own root CA certificate to corporate desktops so they can inspect SSL traffic at the firewall.
Sure they are, at least some of them. As I said, there is a whole industry building up around supporting this specific use case, balancing the degree of access required with the inevitable security implications. There is a whole range of options between having no special access/no control of the device and having the same access you'd have from your company PC that is centrally administered by your IT team.
My company just flat out says if you bring your own device and want to use it on the corporate network, you need to install remote management software that pushes security updates and such and gives them complete access to the device.
That's fine, as long as they also provide dedicated, company-owned and -controlled equipment for all company work. A lot of places don't want to pay that expense and encourage employees to use their own devices, at which point the rules aren't so black and white.
In the real world, BYOD isn't always that simple. The moment an employer encourages their employee to do something on their own device rather than provide dedicated company equipment, there are issues of who has what access, who is responsible for what, etc. There are entire businesses making tools and consulting in this field right now, because that is how big a minefield it is becoming.
Also, it's worth noting that the kinds of devices that do this are often used for compliance with rules like HIPAA or PCI DSS. You can't demonstrate that you aren't allowing sensitive data out of a supposedly secured part of your network if you can't actually see what you're allowing out of it...
With modern smartphones and cellular enabled tablets, there's no reason to do your personal browsing on your employer's network. If you don't want your employer to see it, don't do it on their equipment/network.
True up to a point, but the moment anyone mentions the phrase "bring your own device" and anyone from your company touches your employee's private property, a whole bunch of similar issues are going to come up.
It's true that his sort of system needs to be set up carefully, and probably with the aid of both technical and legal advice if the administrator isn't an expert in this area.
Saying that, with a properly configured set of devices, it is possible to pass encrypted traffic through a security device that temporarily decrypts the data to scan it but never logs or discloses the full data set itself, so nothing sensitive is ever recorded or put in front of human eyes. There is also technology available that will cut payloads off packets or mask them out so logging tools only see the packet headers, and this kind of technology is often used for compliance with HIPAA, PCI DSS, and similar sensitive areas.
Of course, if the administrator didn't choose to use those facilities, or if they set them up incorrectly, their systems could be doing all sorts of things that potentially violate various data protection laws depending on jurisdiction.