Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage The Almighty Buck IT

So You've Lost a $38 Billion File 511

smooth wombat writes "Imagine you're reformatting a hard drive so you can do a clean install but then realize that you have also reformatted the back up hard drive. No problem. You reach for your back up tapes only to find out that the information on the tapes is unreadable. Now imagine the information that is lost was worth $38 billion. This scenario is apparently what happened in July to the Alaska Department of Revenue. From the article: 'Nine months worth of information concerning the yearly payout from the Alaska Permanent Fund was gone: some 800,000 electronic images that had been painstakingly scanned into the system months earlier, the 2006 paper applications that people had either mailed in or filed over the counter, and supporting documentation such as birth certificates and proof of residence.' Using the 300 cardboard boxes containing all the information, staff worked overtime for several months to rescan everything at an additional cost of $200,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So You've Lost a $38 Billion File

Comments Filter:
  • And this is why... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bobetov ( 448774 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:03AM (#18414439) Homepage
    ...print will never be dead.
  • by Rocketship Underpant ( 804162 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:11AM (#18414657)
    No matter what they might have lost, it wasn't worth $38 billion. The state gross product of Alaska is only $33 billion, and their tax revenue will only be a fraction of that. And it's not like they lost any of that either, just some files.

    What, another hyperbole-filled, wildly inaccurate Slashdot post? Inconceivable.

  • Data recovery? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:16AM (#18414777) Journal
    With hard drives, data doesn't just go away. Sure, it may not be recoverable with simple "undelete" software, but data recovery experts will charge far less than $200,000 to pull important files off of a wiped hard drive.

    The same goes for tapes. There is no mention in the article of why they were "unreadable" what level of damage there was to the data, etc.

    We all make mistakes, but 3 layers of backup data storage all failing suggests a horrifically poor system in-place. Not JUST "very bad," that's hard to believe, without some massive natural disaster causing it.
  • Re:Redo the work? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bilbobob ( 1036984 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:22AM (#18414891)
    HD Recovery specialists? They could have could have bought something like GetBackData for NTFS and saved themselves $199921 in recovery costs. As far as I'm aware, reformatting your HD is one of the least successful methods of permanently destroying your data (even if you mean too).
  • Re:Tapes? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:40AM (#18415255)
    What, you think it would be easier to store hard drives off site? How else are you going to store it? If the tapes are off-site they form a part of your DR plan; you hire in a new machine (or if you've got the budget, already have a DR site ready to go) and get the tapes back from the off-site and restore. This isn't rocket science.

    P.S: Iron Mountain are a waste of space. We found another, much smaller, company to handle our tapes after Iron Mountain fucked up one too many times.
  • Re:Tapes? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Philosinfinity ( 726949 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:50AM (#18415481)
    Not even close. We use LTO2 tapes and keep them offsite for 18 months. We've run several test recoveries on tapes > 12 months old with success. Some of our tapes have been in circulation for about 24 - 30 months now and are still writing without difficulty. For restoration purposes, the actual media is rarely the problem. Changes in encryption passwords (with a poorly documented history), files in use, and lost/orphaned files are the most common reasons for restoration failure.
  • Re:Tapes? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sobrique ( 543255 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:51AM (#18415507) Homepage
    I've actually always found it rather easy.

    Get the person with the purse strings to go through the 'cost of downtime' calculation.

    Lead them throught it, point out all the lovely parts like contractual obligations (engineering companies tend to need to keep designs for long long periods of time) or 'regulations' (Sarbanes-Oxley has a lot to answer for).

    Add in the cost of x many people not working for a week.

    Include the 'well, can our business still function if we lose our customer database'.

    And if that really doesn't work, then clearly your last resort is artificially induced panic, where you raise the possibility of 'something important' being gone, and unrecoverable. Payroll records are a good example, as that's a personal terrror as well as a 'problem for the company'.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:25PM (#18416195)
    The video is funny.

    http://www.backuptrauma.com/ [backuptrauma.com]

    Though, using rsync to backup to rotating partitions works as well.

    On odd days, rsync to B1
    On even days, rsync to B2
    On odd weeks, rsync to B3
    On even weeks, rsync to B4
    On odd months, rsync to B5
    On even months, rsync to B6
    On every two odd months, rsync to R7
    On every two even months, rsync to B8
    On every odd year, rsync to B9
    On every even year, rsync to B10

    So with 10x the space, you can have easy instant access to:
    a day or two ago.
    a week or two ago.
    a month or two ago
    4 or 8 months ago.
    a year or two ago.

  • Re:Redo the work? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:34PM (#18416355) Journal
    Nah, Nothing like that. It isn't really exciting either. I cannot really give any names or anything. But I can generically describe what happened.

    A law firm handed me a computer that wouldn't boot. On it was some pictures taken concerning a wrongful death case. It turns out that the pictures were a hindsight and in the middle of fixing it, The task turned from getting the computer to run to getting the pictures from the drive. The drive was failing and was larger then the 137gig 28bit LBA limits. But we didn't know this because it was never booted and XP pre SP1 did not enable 48bit addressing by default. And even after SP1, if you didn't update your ATAPI driver to x.1135 or later, it wouldn't be enabled by default even if you have the ability. So connecting it to another computer made it worse. Eventually the fault in the drive which was a crashed head, made it impossible for us to recover past the boot sector running traditional recovery software. The data recovery specialist were able to get around everything we added to the problem as well as the problem itself and retrieved better then 98% of everything on the drive. I think one file was bad but we weren't concerned with it at all.

    Long story short, the pictures showed someone's negligence in a wrongful death case and once they were presented or added to the evidence pile, the defendant's insurance company settled for 2 mill. The lawsuit was for more then that so you could probably guess what it could have been worth. The firms cut was in the area of 40% from what I understand. So it was worth 40% of 2 mill to them. $2500 seems like a little amount in comparison.
  • Re:Time for... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:35PM (#18416373) Journal
    It has to be worth more than $200k (or else the would have just written off the file). I agree that the info isn't worth the $38B though. The account would still be there even if those transactions weren't. That said I thought all the states learned the lesson of 9/11 of remote offsite backups especially in a state as geologically active as Alaska. Hope the warehouse with the paper isn't near the data center...
  • Re:Tapes? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:35PM (#18416383)
    I worked for a company that used Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain was unable to produce about half the tapes we believed they stored. They were at least partially to blame; after I mentioned missing tapes, they "found" a few more. (Their drivers also had a habit of leaving behind extra cases when we had more than one.) Of course, this was the first ever audit for our company! Our records were absolute crap and ultimately I was only able to account for those tapes done during my time with the company and a few others. The rest were all marked as "lost" in our system and I left the company for other reasons shortly thereafter.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:39PM (#18416457) Journal
    Ah, but we don't know the actual cost. Thirty eight billion is a lot of money. Suppose I wanted to skim some of that money, but I knew that the documentation existed in paper and computerized form. Perhaps I know someone in the records department who can shuffle some papers, but then the computerized records won't match. Oops, now those records are gone and we have no choice but to scan in the documents that I have changed, now everything agrees and there is no record of where that extra million or ten went.
  • Re:Tapes? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dwarfking ( 95773 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:40PM (#18416483) Homepage

    Continuity planning can be complicated based on the environment, and quite often overlooked until the first time it is needed.

    Few companies maintain sufficient hardware of their own for true disaster recovery purposes. In most cases like that, the organization will have redundant data centers that are probably used in a load sharing model. Hopefully one data center can carry the full load of the critical activities if the other goes down. For these organizations, backup tapes are really intended for a complete disaster at all sites that would require acquiring new hardware.

    Other organizations have agreements with firms like Sunguard and IBM for cold sites. These vendors guarantee a certain square footage in their own data centers. They then work with the client to understand the exact hardware and software requirements that would be needed in case the cold site needs to go hot. In these instances, the tapes are shipped to the Sunguard or IBM site and loaded on machines as quickly as possible. The contracts normally give the vendor a minimum amount of time to stand up hardware and load the software and data, governed a great deal by how much data needs loading.

    Just a note, if your company is deciding on going the hosted DR route, make sure before hand that you have agreement from your software vendors that your license allows you to load their software outside your organization. I worked at one company that didn't have that in their original software contracts and had to spend more money with the software vendors when they created a DR plan. Many software vendors won't mention this little detail.

    Most often I've seen backup tapes used when for example an important database table was dropped accidentally. The last good backup tape was loaded and the database completely restored to get back to production. This is what you'd think of as single system disaster recovery.

  • Re:Tapes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Philosinfinity ( 726949 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:43PM (#18416545)
    4 Node (2 active and 2 passive) cluster attached to continuous replicating SANs. 2 nodes (1 active and 1 passive) & 1 SAN onsite, 2 nodes & the other SAN in a remote side, CoLo, or hot site. That's our basic design for critical applications. Active nodes provide network load balancing while the passive nodes allow us failover potential. Granted the cost for such a solution is extremely high, but in an enterprise environment where 3 days of downtime cost more than an entire year of housing and bandwidth the cost definitely justifies the cost. One of the nice features of having remote locations is that you can essentially drop nodes in them and use them as hot sites. They are already housing dedicated bandwidth to the central office, so that aspect becomes a non-issue. Additionally, that configuration allows our hot site to be a true DR location for offsite testing and rebuilding boxes and services. Again, this solution is not cost effective for all businesses, and your assessment of the HA design you've given is fully accurate. There's an element of better availability, but the architecture leaves a lot to be desired for many enterprise concerns. Ultimately, both HA and DR are financial concerns that dictate what a company can afford to spend... and that ultimately determines architecture.
  • by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:46PM (#18416601) Homepage Journal
    About a month or 2 back, a slip of the fingers turned my root filesystem into a linux swap partition.

    Google was my friend. Shortly I learned more about backup superblocks, how to run "mkfs.ext3 -n" to do a dummy mkfs and find out where my backup superblocks are, and "fsck.ext3 -b nnn" to repair the filesystem using the backup superblock.

    I was back running in less than an hour, including google time. Repairing an accidental mkswap on top of ext3 is actually one of the easier things to fix.

    On the other hand, having a system and procedures that made it possible to kill regular and backup data that way, and storing unconfirmed tapes, is clearly not a good idea. Whenever I burn a CD/DVD, I take the few extra minutes and verify it right away. If the backup tape was only a few months old, odds are it was improperly written, as opposed to degraded. They should check their other backup tapes.
  • by jafac ( 1449 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @12:56PM (#18416761) Homepage
    I used to work for a backup software company.

    The hardware; is extremely expensive. And the software ain't cheap (if you expect any degree of automation or features).

    This extortion racket is precisely why most people don't do backups, and of the few that do do backups, they do not test them. (but you've spent the money - never really understood that).

    I have memories of ten years of sob stories; guys who were calling in to tech support because they were about to lose their jobs because they were poor stewards of their employers' data. Sometimes it was our fault (software bugs, poor documentation) - sometimes it was the hardware vendors' fault (bad firmware, defective lots of tape, etc.), sometimes it was the OS vendors' fault (interoperability standards between file systems, network protocols, etc.) - sometimes, it was just bad luck. But more often than not, it was ignorance and laziness, and above all - CHEAPNESS. Some MIS hack didn't want to spring for a quality backup drive, or didn't want to take the time to test-restore data, or didn't want to hire a college intern to inspect error logs regularly for backup problems.

    It just KILLS me to see folks suffer because they weren't careful with their data.

    But at home? Screw it. I don't backup. I'm cheap.
    You've got to be able to separate valuable data from stuff you can re-install or re-download.
  • by iocat ( 572367 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @01:27PM (#18417327) Homepage Journal
    They hired Dell and Microsoft to do the recover. Why not drivesavers [drivesavers.com] or some other reputable firm that doesn't just run Norton but looks at the physical bits on the disc.

    Anyway, what DIDN'T shock me about this story is that after formatting the main disk, the tech immediately (and blissfully) formatted the backup as well. I've seen stuff like that happen like ten times. ("Oh, well, after I replaced the drive, I figured I should replace the backup tapes too, so we could have a fresh start, so I threw them out." or "I figured I should make a backup right away, so I over-wrote the good backup with the new, bad, data.") I don't want to blame the victim, but sometimes it's like the data wants to be destroyed at that point. My favorite was when someone added a second drive to an important source control server to do nightly drive to drive back-ups. Then, they stopped doing tape backups nightly and switched to weekly. Then, they forgot they disconnected a fan during the HDD installation (or it was accidently disconnected -- it remains a debated point), then the server fried itself and the drives. Then everyone lost a day of work rebuilding the source archive based on their local data. Good times.

  • Re:Data recovery? (Score:0, Interesting)

    by NocturnalWarrior ( 19198 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @01:28PM (#18417353) Homepage
    I work at a data recovery firm. With modern drives, Once bits have been overwritten there is no commercially viable method for determining the previous values.
  • by greginnj ( 891863 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @02:31PM (#18418449) Homepage Journal
    A file restore is as different from a full system restore as an engine bench test is different from a full rocket launch.

    As an IT auditor, I do ding IT shops when they don't do full system restores (which has the dual benefits of verifying that the techs are capable, and verifying that the media is readable). I'm going to be printing out this story and showing it to people who don't do full system restores... I get along fine with BOFHs, and I can sympathize with them about the burden of SOX, but while I'm doing the audit, I don't let them slide on this.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...