Why isn't RAID/NAS a backup strategy

MarkNorgren wrote:
if backup IS the prime goal, then it would seem that something like cloud - maybe one of those services like Carbonite - might be a cheaper solution the owning one's own NAS/RAID/equipment.

For a lot of users (maybe even most PC users) it would cheaper to use a cloud service.

In my case, backup is one goal, but not the primary goal. The main reason I got a NAS was to consolidate my storage. We have 4 PCs, several media players, smart phone and a tablet. The multimedia and documents were scattered across the various systems, making it hard to keep track of what was where. The NAS solves that problem. Though I also back up the PCs to the NAS (and back up the NAS to my older slower NAS).

MarkNorgren wrote:
I thought that services like _____ were unlimited. I don't have TB's of data - just family pictures and videos and such.

Some truly are unlimited.

Carbonite isn't really. What they do is cut back your upload speed as you backup up more data.
http://carbonite.custhelp.com/app/answe ... allocation

The first 35GB of data can achieve upload speeds of up to 2 mbps (megabits per second). Between 35GB and 200GB of data, upload speeds can reach up to 512 kbps (kilobits per second). At 200GB or more of data, upload speeds are limited to around 100 kbps (kilobits per second).

I have a fast connection, and have backed up my NAS to the cloud (using CrashPlan's service). It took a couple of months to upload the full 6 TB of data. For me this is quite acceptable for disaster recovery, but I would rather have a local backup which can be recovered much more quickly. Also, I don't really trust the Cloud yet. A lot of the companies are new, and there will probably be a shake out at some point. And the cloud is vulnerable to failure too.