Networker

Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?

2003-04-22 13:30:23
Subject: Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?
From: Gaddy <xy.0815 AT GMX DOT NET>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:30:20 -0400
enclosed some cloning principles we use:

1st: we backup to multiple pools
   (i.e. Oracle to OraclePool, Notes to NotesPool, other to Default)
2nd: we clone all the backups to ONE clonepool
   reason: we have to move not that much cartridges!
   (the so called "volume cloning" is no help here,
     one input tape --> one (ore two :-) output tapes)
3rd: we send cloning volumes offline (!near)
    reasons: - it gives me a much better feeling to RECOVER
             from verified tapes instead of sending them
             offline for "disaster recovery"
             (it's quite possible they never get used) but ... :-(
             - there had been (?) an issue, that NetWorker
             accepted the clone saveset ONLY, if the original
             had been marked "suspect"
             (but this seems to be gone away, if I understand this thread
              correctly)
4th: we only return cartridges which have been already recycled
      (i.e. mminfo -q volrecycle -q !near -r volume)

But one question seems to be still open:
Does cloning some kind of de-multiplexing or not?

Regards -sg-
--
Steffen Gattert; MOMENTUM Systech Hamburg

--
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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

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