No we are not implementing blockchain to our backup systems
No we are not implementing blockchain to our backup systems
46 comments
-
-
Be fired || deal with customers
😰
-
Your meetings have agendas? That must be nice.
-
-
What does the title have to do with the post...?
-
Well, customers will sometimes ask for certain solutions to be used. Solutions for problems they don't have...
-
Solutions that make no sense to the problem they think they have.
-
-
Customers fall for every hype and want dumb things that don't make sense to be implemented.
-
suit customer may be worst customer
-
-
Oh look ! A programmers meme thread has descended into a technical argument.
-
What even is this job? 😂
-
Real talk, if this is happening to you often you've gotta decline more meetings.
-
Agenda?
-
honestly a distributed ledger makes alot of sense for backups, having a swarm of backup nodes which replicate your backup data... good resiliency and geographic distribution.
-
What you want in that situation is called a "replicated database", not a "distributed ledger" and certainly not a "blockchain".
-
99.999% of the time what people imagine when they say blockchain is good is effectively just the matrix protocol, which can be summarized as federated eventually consistent databases (and that's pretty dang neato).
-
I haven't seen a replicated database that operates over the same scale of failure domains as distrubuted ledgers, do you have good examples of that?
-
-
It makes no sense at all to distribute the backup generation step, and what do you do with your ledger once the retention period ends?
There may be something you can do with a ledger in the "full - incremental - incremental - incremental ..." cycle, but I can't think of anything that's actually useful.
-
That's just ceph with extra steps.
-
46 comments
You need to implement the synergistic cloud blockchain.
*synergistic cloud quantum blockchain powered by AI
ON THE METAVERSE
Ah, so we can leverage acceleration towards actionable efficiency.