ADSM-L

Re: ADSM-L Digest - 1 Aug 2004 to 2 Aug 2004 (#2004-204)

2004-08-03 10:43:14
Subject: Re: ADSM-L Digest - 1 Aug 2004 to 2 Aug 2004 (#2004-204)
From: "Leonard, Christopher" <christopher-leonard AT UIOWA DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:42:49 -0500
Thanks Del.  I will try to do just that.

The number of SQL Server instances and databases we have, plus the hardware
we currently have available (not to mention the admistrative issues
associated with restoring from one SQL Server node onto another in sqltdp!)
make doing "actual" restores of each backup a fairly uninviting scenario
right now.  I mean, we can periodically restore backups, but I don't know if
we have the bandwidth available to test them all!  VERIFYONLY is nice, since
it gives you a high level of assurance that everything is OK in between the
actual test restores.  Also, I've never met anyone who actually had the
verify succeed only to have a subsequent restore fail.  But then again,
maybe I'm just leading a sheltered life.  :o)   The frustrating thing is
that it seems that this would be such an easy component to add to the
interface, and it saves so much time versus setting up the
restore-to-another-server scenario.

Thanks again.  I'll ask our systems people who our IBM representative is,
and forward the request to them.

Chris


> Date:    Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:10:23 -0400
> From:    Del Hoobler <hoobler AT US.IBM DOT COM>
> Subject: Re: TDP for SQL - VERIFYONLY?
>
> Chris,
>
> I remember you asking about this last year as well.
> You are correct that Data Protection for SQL does not have
> a "VERIFYONLY" function at this time. To be completely honest
> we have only heard this request from one or two customers.
>
> Since it means that you need to read and restore all of the data from the
> backup set anyway, many people have decided to just do the actual
> restore to an alternate server to do a *real* verification that their
> data will restored and actually see it work, versus a message that
> says "The backup set is valid."
>
> I encourage you to submit an official requirement through your
> IBM representative that you need this function added to Data Protection
> for SQL. If the requirement is heard from enough customers, the priority
> will rise and it has a much better chance of being implemented.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Del

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>