* Steve Harris <Steve_Harris AT HEALTH.QLD.GOV DOT AU> 
[2004:03:02:16:18:51+1000] scribed:
> Weird requirement.
> 
> Not something that I'd recommend. And I don't see the logic for having
> only part of the data, but, its an intellectual challenge as to how
> this can be done.
> 
> Try this
> 
> Set up a random diskpool big enough to hold one nights backup.  Point
> backup at this. 

OK

> Set up a  main  sequential file diskpool. Make this the nextstg of the
> nightly pool with manually controlled migration between the two.

OK

> Each day, run a backup stg from the nightly pool to the tape pool and
> send the tapes off site.

Will this contain _only_ new files and files that have changed since last 
backup?

> Then migrate the nightly pool  to the main pool.

OK

> Script a tape return process keyed on the state and update date of the
> drmedia table.

OK

> When the tapes come back, run a delete vol discardd=yes on them.

OK

Now that I have studied your suggestion, and understand it, I recognize
its value.  Thank you.

However, I wonder what value these tapes have, since -- by themselves --
they are incomplete and cannot facilitate recovery.

How do most sites implement rotating tapes offsite?

It seems to me, that since my client uses their disk array(s) like sites
I have seen use tapes, the only real difference is how to create those
tapes that are to be taken offsite.

What am I missing?

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature