gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x572d1100.hantslug.org.uk.28051': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Sun May 31 22:59:52 2009 BST
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
Hi Anton,
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:09:17PM +0100, Anton Piatek wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Andy Smith <andy@???>:
> > I still would like to see some sort of P2P backup thingy where it
> > split all your chosen files into blocks, encrypted them and then
> > stored copies of them "in the cloud," maintaining a certain level of
> > copies at all times.
>
> I have seen several of these - if only I could remember the names of them.
>
> The idea being that you get together with either a group of friends,
> or just join an existing pool and you allocate a certain amount of
> your disk to other people's backups and it cloud-backups your data.
Yes, exactly. I was thinking that you could ensure a certain number
of your blocks were backed up remotely by adding nodes to the cloud
which are only allowed to backup your stuff. That way it would not
actually be a waste to put another machine somewhere else, yet still
participate.
> The amount of space required on my disks to backup a enough
> friend's data to make it worthwhile means that its cheaper for me to
> buy disks to stick in a machine at my parent's house (as opposed to
> having 200G of someone elses data at my house).
For me I am not sure it is worth it. I have about 400G of data I
want stored remotely. Most of it is of low priority and I'd be happy
enough to have 1 copy of it elsewhere. Some of it, I would like to
see 3 or 4 copies online at all times (probably by providing one of
those mirrors myself).
The issue is that I can't really run 400G of storage remotely for a
reasonable fee. I think it is way cheaper for me to add 1T of
storage to a system I already have in my home, than convince someone
to host a computer with 500G of storage elsewhere. Smart people are
concerned with power consumption and bandwidth use.
> The problem will be that I have 200G of data to backup, but don't
> really want to store 200G+ of someone elses data. If I only offer 50G
> of my disk, and everyone else thought the same, then you would never
> get enough data as you lose some (probably a lot if you want access to
> it without requiring a large amount of the pool online) capacity
> trying to make it redundant.
In theory I'd be happy to add 1T of storage to my home systems and
give 500G of it to mirroring stuff for people on the Internet, with
a bandwidth throttle, if that meant that people on the Internet
would mirror 500G of stuff for me.
I think that would work out cheaper than building a system with 500G
of disk in it and paying someone to host it for me with the
attendant power and bandwidth concerns.
I could investigate doing a swap with someone else who wants 500G of
offsite storage, but I can't realistically fit another machine in
this house.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
<GeorgeWBush> I'm still banned on #ubuntu-uk though. Or should I say,
#ubuntu-anti-trans
