Networker

[Networker] Merits of sending indexes and bootstrap to separate pool?

2004-01-23 16:25:30
Subject: [Networker] Merits of sending indexes and bootstrap to separate pool?
From: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:25:56 -0500
Hello,

I have some questions here regarding opinions and techniques on using a
separate pool for indexes and bootstrap.

Under our current setup, we utilize two main pools (one for fulls and
one for everything else), and all the client indexes, including the
primary server and storage node, are written to the same pool of tapes
as the data. So for example, if a client named fred is running fulls,
then it might write its data and index to something like FUL130. If it's
running incrementals or levels then something like INC130. The server
likewise backs up to the same pools, including the bootstrap, which I
guess is always a level full? We're running 6.1.1 on Sun with Linux
Storage node same release.

Question 1. Does anyone have any philosophies, suggestions of criticisms
on having the client indexes instead go to a separate pool of tapes from
the actual data?

The way I see it: I was thinking to create a pool named something like
IDX and maybe a clone pool (IDXC) and have all the clients send their
indexes to this pool regardless of the backup level. Seems this would be
nice because we could then take all the IDX tapes off site, and if in
the future we needed to recover data by browse, we would have the tape
to recover the index. Now, we might not since we do have to recycle
tapes after a while and the indexes are on there, too. Indexes don't
take up as near as much space, though, so we could go much longer before
recycling these IDX tapes. Of course, we might not have the data anymore
at that point, but might help to organize things better? Will tie up a
drive, though (sigh).

Question 2. What about the bootstrap? Is this always a level full
regardless of the level backup that the server is running?

Question 3. What about having the server go to a separate pool?

The way I see it: The only thing on the server that seems worth sending
to a special pool would be the server's index and bootstrap. The client
indexes get backed up when the clients themselves back up, and the rest
can be recovered from the regular pools. I'm thinking we could have the
server's bootstrap and index also go to this same IDX pool?

Question 4: How to get the bootstap to go to this same pool?

Would appreciate any feedback.

George


George

--
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>