SShortSingh.
Back to feed

Why Backups Alone Don't Guarantee Recovery for Small Software Teams

0
·5 views

Many small teams assume that enabling backups means they are prepared for disaster, but this says nothing about data age, restore duration, or whether a restore has ever been tested. The article argues that two business-defined targets, a recovery point objective for acceptable data loss and a recovery time objective for acceptable downtime, should drive every technical decision. It notes that recovery time includes detection, decision-making, provisioning, verification and traffic switching, not just the restore itself. Common failures are backups that were silently broken, incomplete, undecryptable, or stored in the same environment they protect. The piece recommends restoring backups at least quarterly, timing the process, and remembering overlooked assets such as uploaded files, secrets, DNS and certificates.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Log in to join the discussion and vote.

Log in

Related stories

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Matting evaluation shows region and normalization choices can shift MSE more than sixfold

A small matting evaluation on a 90-frame synthetic clip found that the choice of measurement region changed one matte's MSE from 1.41 to 9.03. The author argues that reports must state the region each metric covers, how it is normalized, and where the ground truth came from. Band-only reporting also hid over half of a chroma key's error, which sat outside the edge band. A control with pure flicker scored best on whole-frame dtSSD because its noise was diluted by the full-frame divisor. The author also notes unit scaling differences between raw JSON and the table, and that the dtSSD code was written from memory and not yet verified.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Argo CD 3.5 upgrade: what ops teams moving from 3.x should prepare for

A platform team running Argo CD 3.2 or 3.3 with a few hundred Applications needs to upgrade to 3.5 before an upcoming audit. The release came out in August 2026, and patch releases have since reached 3.5.6, while upstream support covers only the newest minor lines. The article advises treating the upgrade as a managed migration rather than a simple version bump, including backing up state, reviewing upgrade notes for each intervening minor, and rehearsing in a non-production environment. It also flags that ingress-nginx, which was retired in March 2026, should be replaced separately rather than during the same change window. The detailed behavior changes are not reproduced and should be taken from the official Argo CD upgrade documentation and release notes.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Chess Engine in C Part 6: How Attacked Squares Are Detected

The sixth installment of a series on building a chess engine in C focuses on detecting attacked squares. An attacked square is one a piece could move to and capture on, regardless of whether a piece currently occupies it. The author explains how each piece's movement pattern is encoded using direction offsets on a 12x10 mailbox board. A SqAttacked function then checks pawns, knights, sliding rooks and queens, bishops and queens, and kings in turn to decide whether a given square is under attack by a specified side.