I hate this take, and it seems to contradict itself.
What actually counts
A copy counts when it survives the loss of the thing it was copied from. That one sentence settles most arguments about what is and isn’t a backup.
So doesn’t raid count then? If a drive fails and the second drive survives the loss, it is a backup…
Just because the copy is synchronous doesn’t mean it isn’t a backup, it just means it protects from a different type of failure.
RAID: protects against a drive failure
Snapshot: protects against user failure (rm *)
Replication: protects against admin failure (zpool destroy)
Offsite tape/async backup: protects against replication corruption, and total site failure
These are all backups, just with different recovery point objectives/recovery time objectives, and all just as important.
I hate this take, and it seems to contradict itself.
So doesn’t raid count then? If a drive fails and the second drive survives the loss, it is a backup…
Just because the copy is synchronous doesn’t mean it isn’t a backup, it just means it protects from a different type of failure.
These are all backups, just with different recovery point objectives/recovery time objectives, and all just as important.