Root cause analysis: getting past the first plausible answer
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
Everyone agrees backups matter and almost nobody checks that theirs work. The gap between having a backup and being able to restore is where most data loss actually happens.
Data backup is keeping a second copy of what you cannot afford to lose, somewhere the thing that destroys the first copy cannot reach. That last clause carries most of the weight: a copy on the same machine survives a deleted file and not a stolen laptop; a copy in the same account survives a hardware failure and not a compromised login; a copy that syncs instantly survives neither ransomware nor a mistake, because both propagate.
The failure that actually costs businesses money is rarely the absence of backups. It is discovering, at the worst possible moment, that the backup covered the wrong things, stopped running four months ago, or cannot be restored by anyone still working there.
Three copies of anything important, on two different kinds of storage, with one of them somewhere else. It is old advice and it survives because each part removes a specific way of losing everything: the second copy covers deletion and corruption, the second medium covers a failing device or a failing service, and the offsite copy covers fire, theft and an account compromise. A single sync folder satisfies none of the three, however reliable the provider.
An untested backup is a belief, not a control. The most common discovery during a first restore test is not that the data is missing but that the process takes far longer than anyone assumed — hours of download, a licence nobody has, a format nothing opens. Knowing that on a quiet Tuesday is worth considerably more than the backup itself.
File sync keeps copies identical, which is exactly the wrong behaviour when the change is bad. Delete a folder and it disappears everywhere; encrypt it and the encrypted version replicates. Version history in a sync service softens this and is genuinely useful, but it is usually shallow and account-bound, so a compromised or closed account takes the history with it. Sync is convenience; backup is a separate copy that does not follow the original into the fire.
Ettex Docs is where working documents live, with version history and sharing, and the sharing side is covered in online document sharing. Being precise about what that is and is not: it is a document store with history, not a backup product. There is no scheduled backup agent, no immutable or air-gapped copies, no full-device imaging and no bare-metal restore.
So the honest recommendation is the boring one: keep an independent copy of anything that matters, on something we do not control, and test that you can get it back. That advice costs us nothing and has saved more small businesses than any feature list.
Three copies of important data, on two different types of storage, with one copy offsite. Each element removes a distinct way of losing everything at once.
Not on its own. Sync propagates deletions and encryption to every copy, and version history is usually shallow and tied to the account. It is convenience, not a second independent copy.
At least twice a year, by restoring something real and timing it. The usual discovery is not missing data but a restore that takes far longer than anyone expected.
Whatever it produced itself and could not reproduce, plus anything with a statutory retention period. Installers and downloadable media are not worth the space or the slower restore.
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
A code of conduct says how people here are expected to behave and what happens when they do not. Its value is not aspiration — it is having decided the hard cases before one arrives.
A project charter names the objective, the boundaries, the sponsor and the person authorised to run the work. Its main use comes months later, when people disagree about what was agreed.