Networker

Re: [Networker] re Cloning and setting new browse time

2006-11-07 15:02:40
Subject: Re: [Networker] re Cloning and setting new browse time
From: "Landwehr, Jerome" <jlandweh AT HARRIS DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:54:45 -0500
we were interested in the same thing - we stage to a VTL (want this to
remain for a month) and then clone to another pool (20 year retention)

the rub is that all clones have the same retention policy but
independent browse policies

this isn't good enough because we don't want to loose the browseability
of the long term clone, not to mention that for the short term
(original) to expire so would the long term

they are supposed to rectify this in a future release - if I recall
correctly, 7.4 - so clones and their originals have independent browse
*and* independent retention

in the meantime, I have to manually relabel all the VTL volumes since
they must be on a 20 year retention to match their clone - no fun

jl

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Bob Flynn (bobf)
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:24 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] re Cloning and setting new browse time

I would be interested in any information on this.

 

We had looked at keeping on line copies on disk and taking a copy off
site, but with 7.2 the retention times for an original and either staged
or cloned copy was the same. As I understand it, the database was
modified in 7.3, allowing separate retention times for multiple copies
of a save set, allowing a disk copy to have a short retention time, and
an offsite tape copy for example to have a longer retention time.

 

Because of the concern about 7.3, we are sitting at 7.2.1 and waiting
for 7.3 under linux to be more stable before making the jump. 

 

As I understand it, even if we go to 7.3, we are still going to be hit
by the browse time for multiple copies ? I would have though there would
be a one -to-one relationship to unique saveset copies for browse times
as there it for retention times ?

 

Have you checked with legato on this ?

 

I ask, because we will be hit by this if this problem still exists and
there is no workaround.

 

-Bob

 

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
wit 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>