On our large data servers, we have started running a weekend backup
using NTBACKUP and local tape drives. The idea is that if we lose
the server. We start a full restore with the NTBACKUP, and while it
is running, we can use ADSM to quickly restore the files that are
needed immediately to a temporary server.
Once the NTBACKUP restore is completed, we will use ADSM to bring the
server up to date.

We requested our hardware people to use multiple arrays of small drives
instead of Their current arrays built out of 4 18.2GB drives, but they
believe that raid5 will never fail. I guess that we're exempt from fire,
and earthquake, and of course, it's impossible that more thatn one drive
could fail at the same time.


Stephan Rittmann wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I want to start a discussion about ADSM and backing up big file servers. In 
> our
> environment we have 16 Mbit token-ring networks and we are using ADSM to back
> up all of the critical data.
> The biggest file servers that we use at the moment has a 18 GB data partition.
> Backing up these servers with incremental backup is no problem. It works for a
> long time, everybody is satisfied about the short backup times. But what will
> happen  in the case of a disk failure. If the server was very full, you have 
> to
> restore up to 18 GB. With our kind of netwotk this would take about 20 houres
> or more.
> What I want to say is; The disks in the servers  become bigger and bigger, the
> backup time is still the same because of the incremental technique from ADSM.
> I'm sure that most of the useres from ADSM don't think about the long restore
> times in case of a disk failure.
> The difference between the network speed and the size of the data disks 
> becomes
> bigger and I see a problem in this fact.
>
> What are you think about these? And how could we solve these problem?
>
> Stephan Rittmann
> FIDUCIA AG, Karlsruhe
> Germany