We don’t need a backup, we have a RAID-5!

“oh it’s in the cloud, we don’t need to back it up”
 

MS365 has a trashbin, that's enough!

Snapshots are backup! 

“we have snapshots ...why would we need backups?”

Or “Hyper-V is stable enough, we don’t need backups!”

“RAID 1, means we have two copies of data ..right, no need for backups”

We have a stretched cluster, the data is replicated to both sides - no backup neccessary….

I cannot recover my backups with Veeam due to errors?  My backup chain is 500 files using Forever Forward with no active/synthetic full backups. DOH 

Snapshots work the same way as backup.

With AMI, you do not need a backup solution. This was one of the most common terms back then :-)

We’re not worried about immutability, we’ve secured our environment.

I hear this lot.... This time not HyperV but Xen 

We are replicated to a second site. We have 2 copies of data already. (No you don’t, you have 1 replicated set of data)

We have DR, why do we need backups?

I have backups, but I’ve never tested any of them, and they are on external USB hard drives that sit in a drawer. 

Everything's in raid, There is zero possibility of 2 disks will failing at the same time

And of course, “Snapshots”

All these are very good, OMG! 

Also after thinking a bit, a lot more came to my mind during mi career, 

Now I remember them with sense of humor and also some kind of cuteness, but in the exact moment I hear them, it was a mess!!!!!

Thanks for sharing those!

Anyone else having a “Epic” phrase down there?

cheers.

I’ve run across this with clients that we onboarded where their previous provider was using StorageCraft ShadowProtect and ImageManager wasn’t configured to maintain their restore points.  That backup chain gets really long, silently fails, takes a long time to restore, and just stops working.  I can’t imagine forever forward without periodic fulls to assist.

The two stereotypical but not false excuses always have to do with RAID and snapshots.  That said, I hear a lot less excuses for not doing it and just see it more often to where folks just don’t think about it, or just forget about it.  The only other excuses I tend to hear revolve around cost of licensing a hardware.

“my workloads are self-healing!” :)

We switched off monitoring, we got too many alerts. - A sadly relatable one, but not the right approach to resolving!

I often hear or see that. Many times monitoring messages are moved to a certain folder by an Outlook rule and so nobody checks them anymore.

It my not be the worst phrase: ‘We don't need to backup that as we can rebuild it from scratch’

→ While that's true, how many IT teams really have spare time to rebuild existing systems? Especially during a disaster? And will you have an up-to-date documentation?

I have heard this a lot in the last times from the colleagues building kubernetes cluster.

They had a data loss last week, now they want a backup suddenly….

Please suggest Kasten! All the same, most people learn from their own mistakes...

But these alerts can be really overwhelming! Monitoring MUST never be switched off. Warnings and non-critical alerts can be managed by outlook rules but not critical alerts. You can also manage critical alerts by these rules but the folder must be regularly checked...

Monitoring is another word! we should open another discussion just to shout laud about it!

OMG! properly handling “nagios” alerts was a headache, 

same thing with also veeam alerts by mail.

When you start getting a lot of warnings, you get used to them, and the criticality of a warning dilutes from reality.

I hate not having a clean alerting method, but sometimes is impossible to manage.

“we’ve always done it that way ...”