On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:30:36 -0400, George Sinclair
<George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> wrote:
If one makes a duplicate of a tape Networker has no way of tracking it. The
orignal copy can have a location of "Jukebox" or "Offsite" but Networker
will have no knowledge where the copy is .
Also, if Networker recycles the original tape, called tape001, and new data
is written to it, it still has no knowledge of the copy. Its a bit
confusing now because we have a tape call tape001 from say March and a tape
called tape001 from April... if you try to scan in the old tape to recover
it will conflict with the current tape called tape001. Very confusing.
I guess if you know the original volume name will never be reused a copy is
good ..ie. a second or third copy of an evidentiary backup.
Robert Maiello
Thomson Healthcare
>So I guess the point is that if you can use utilities like 'dd', or
>'tcopy' on Solaris, then why ever use the clone volume feature? Other
>than the fact that cloning removes the multi-plexing (nice), wouldn't
>'dd' or 'tcopy' be faster and thus preferred?
>
>George
>
>Yura Pismerov wrote:
>>
>> George Sinclair wrote:
>> >
>> > We all know that you can clone a NetWorker volume which is really just
>> > cloning all the savesets, but does anyone if you can use something like
>> > 'dd' to dump the contents of a NetWorker labeled tape to something like
>> > tar and then re - 'dd' it back to another "blank" tape?
>>
>> Why don't run
dd directly tape-to-tape with bs=64k (that is what
>> Networker uses) ?
>>
>> >
>> > In essence, I'm trying to determine if it's possible to create an exact
>> > copy of a NetWorker labeled tape without using NetWorker. Seems it would
>> > be faster than cloning since it would not have to un-multi-plex
>> > anything. It could just read and write. Data is data so why wouldn't it
>> > work? Obviously, NetWorker would not have to be aware that the duplicate
>> > tape existed, until you used it in which case it would just think it was
>> > the original. Would they not be interchangeable?
>> >
>> > Alternatively, if the NetWorker label on the source tape proves a
>> > problem then might it be possible to somehow skip past this part of the
>> > source tape, create a new labeled tape and then dump everything else on
>> > the original tape that comes after the label to the new labeled (copy)
>> > tape.
>> >
>> > Would be curious to know if anyone has experimented with this and how
>> > you did it.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> > --
>> > Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
>> > to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
>> > http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
>> > also view and post messages to the list.
>> > =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>>
>> --
>> Yuri Pismerov, Sr. System Administrator,
>> TUCOWS.COM INC. (416) 535-0123 ext. 1352
>
>--
>Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
>to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
>http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
>also view and post messages to the list.
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|