Networker

[Networker] Usefulness of clones (WAS: Problemwith the recycling of clones)

2003-01-09 03:25:48
Subject: [Networker] Usefulness of clones (WAS: Problemwith the recycling of clones)
From: "T. S. Kimball" <tkimball AT BRASS DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 03:26:35 -0500
[Sorry about the previous blank post, forgot which browser I was
usin'.]

As I was trying to say :), I agree with George's notes.  As an
example, I had a time where an extra copy of a set of clone tapes
were needed, and had to create a whole new pool just to accomodate
it.

I would rather have preferred to 'clone' back to a normal save
pool (there were tapes avail), but this is not possible since
cloning can only send to another clone pool.

One way we considered doing what George wanted (a seperate copy)
was to recover the files then back them up again.  This for us
is a waste of I/O as well as impractical in our environment anyway,
so we just dealt with the re-clone via a new pool.

If anyone can suggest a relatively simple (and inexpensive)
alternative that could be used in case it's needed again, I'd
appreciate it.


Thx,
--TSK

=====
Timothy S. Kimball                  tkimbal AT att DOT net._rm_this_bit
=====


On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:04:13 +1100, George Scott
<George.Scott AT ITS.MONASH.EDU DOT AU> wrote:

[snip]

>To my mind the concept of clones, as implemented in the current
>NetWorker, has limited usefulness.
>
>I'd much prefer to be able to create duplicate copies of save sets.
>Once created the two copies could be manipulated independently of each
>other.  So you could, for example, copy a favourite save set to another
>piece of media and delete or recycle the original.
>
>While I'm on the topic: the idea of having special "clone" media pool
>types that clones must exclusively be written to is an unnecessarily
>restrictive crock too.  I should be able to write clones to which ever
>pool I like.  "Is a clone" / "is not a clone" / "do not care" should be
>one of the pool selection criteria (like client and level are now) so
>that I could choose to have an exclusive clone pool if I wanted to.  If
>I choose to mix my clone save sets with original save sets I should be
>able to do that too.  I am happy with dire warnings in large print in
>the manuals or even "it looks like you are doing something dumb"
>messages from commands.
>
>It is probably acceptable to have a restriction that a clone can not be
>on the same piece of media as the original, but forcing a totally
>separate and exclusive pool is overkill (albeit much easier to
>program...).
>

>
>George.
>--
>George Scott           George.Scott AT its.monash DOT edu
>Systems Programmer, IT Services, Monash University

--
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>