Why don't you do a second incremental (with a different nodename) every
day/night with a management class that allows only 1 version? 

Result would be nearly continous tapes with the data you need for recovery. 
(together with collacation)

The problem with backupsets is that their generation needs a lot of tape and
cpu time and after a short time the bs are outdated.

With Regards,
Stefan Holzwarth

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Steve Harris [mailto:Steve_Harris AT HEALTH.QLD.GOV DOT AU]
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2000 00:18
> An: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Betreff: Re: Monthly Full backups
> 
> This "once a month snapshot" idea is a hangover from old 
> manual tape handling procedures
> The user attitude is that they want exactly the same 
> functionality that they had, whether or not it is needed.
> 
> I'm still fighting the good fight on this one, but one way to 
> handle this is to set retonly to be 13 months (or whatever 
> retention period they want the monthly backups to last) and 
> just get them to name or rename their long term storage files 
> to something unique e.g. with a date in it) and then delete 
> it after is backed up. i.e. files that are "machine 
> generated" with unique names effectively provide a long-term 
> storage facility without extra TSM admin hassles.
> 
> Steve. 
> 
> >>> "Gill, Geoffrey L." <GEOFFREY.L.GILL AT SAIC DOT COM> 20/12/2000 
> 5:18:37 >>>
> >We have some users who want to do full monthly backups and keep these
> >separate from the normal backups (ie. do a backup once a month
> >and keep for
> >1 year).
> >
> >We do this via the Archive, but it has it's limitations:
> >- must specify each drive letter/ file system
> >- can't archive all of the WIN2K System Ojbects
> 
> I also do "monthly archives" for some of our people, with 
> more coming. In my
> opinion, and this is the way I specify to my customers, an archive is
> supposed to be the data that is most important to their 
> contract/work. To me
> this means you can probably eliminate the C: drive altogether.
> 
> I don't see that as a limitation, instead I see it as the 
> best way to keep
> people from archiving superfulous things that just take up 
> space in the
> database anyway. Just think how fast that many objects can 
> add up if you
> have 100 or so clients to archive. A "full monthly backup" is 
> probably not
> going to be used for anything by the time 9 months has gone 
> by. Who in the
> world would want to recover a system that far in the past? I 
> believe it's
> the customer data they'd be looking for so why not just 
> archive that to
> begin with?
> 
> Geoff
> Just my thoughts, I know not everyone will agree....
>