Tim Mooney wrote:

> Here's one thing I've never really understood: why separate your index
> savesets from your data?  I don't get what the advantage is, so we've
> never done that here.  Our indexes save to the same pool/tapes as the
> actual saveset data and their browse/recover period is the same as the
> saveset data.
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me on this issue?  I know there are plenty of sites
> that are saving indexes separately so there obviously has to be a valid
> reason for it.

The usual reason is to speed up a DR situation, so that when you do an
nsrck -L7 for all clients it does not need to read dozens of tapes.

There are other situations where it may be beneficial. Some sites have
lots and lots of pools (bad practice IMHO). In this scenario if you were
backing up some data to a storage node in one pool, NetWorker would need
to unmount the tape from the storage node and remount it on the server.
The worst case of this is where you have non-shared libraries, and
perhaps just a small library for just the server. In this case you could
need to have lots of tapes labelled in various pools on the server just
to write indices.

There are valid arguments NOT to have a separate pool for indices too.

There are also arguments both ways for backing up the indices all
together in one group rather than with the data groups.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER