From: Kevin
Whittaker [mailto:Kevin.Whittaker AT syniverse DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:39
PM
To: Curtis Preston; Rosenkoetter, Gabriel;
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Is BMR worth it /
How long does it really save you?
A shameless plug for
your book, but no special discount code for us fellow backupcentral
people? ;-)
From:
veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:52
PM
To: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel;
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Is BMR worth it /
How long does it really save you?
Gabe
said:
>That said, I haven't seen any
reason to switch from an existing, documented, and internally-understood
>HP-UX systems recovery that
relies on the (HP) vendor-supplied sys_recover bits, but
>BMR's definitely a win for OSes
with less mature ways to do this (Windows, Linux) and
>probably for places where you
aren't already doing something that works.
HP-UX system recovery, AIX mksysb, & Solaris
Flasharchive are all well-documented systems that work very well for recovering
the OS to its current state. (Ahem, all covered very nicely in my book,
BTW. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102461/backupcentral0d
)
The advantage to BMR is
not having to do a separate backup for that purpose, and being much more
automated. My experience has been that, even though those methods work
very well, the fact that you have to do a separate backup for them to work makes
them usually out of date very quickly. With BMR, your system recovery info
gets updated every time you do a backup. That’s as good as it’s going to
get.