--1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Michael F Lavelle <Michael.F.Lavelle AT abbott DOT com> [2005-05-18 18:28]:
> David,
> Even if your backup policies are set to backup a certain director=
y=20
> tree or filesystem, the goodies' coverage script will not tell you=20
> anything about frequency of backups or retention.
> More importantly, no 3rd party tool will inform you about=20
> dependencies an application has on all data, binaries, configuration=20
> files, device drivers, etc... That is still something you and your=20
> customers have to define and prove thru DR testing.
Well, duh!
You will notice I didn't claim anything about frequency or retention, or
dependencies between applications and data. If you _are_ relying on
someone else to tell you how to do your job or how to run your
business, you're crazy. I was simply pointing out that I saw something
that has the potential to fill a gap that is a pain point for us and
thought sharing would be a good thing.
Storage Console _does_ help you see information about frequency
(indirectly) by making it obvious if something has not been backing up
for a while (displays last successful backup). As for retention, even SC
has a ways to go with policy management reporting. I've posted my own
version of policy reporting that includes vault information. last I
checked, no one else, commercial or otherwise, has attempted to
reconcile the polices to the vault profiles.
You have to remember we are talking about backup reporting here, and
ways to make that easier. Veritas certainly doesn't give you crap to do
that. Their tech couldn't even get Command Central _installed_, let
alone working after three weeks during our eval process. So you have
three choices; live with the sub-standard reporting in NBU, write your
own stuff and maintain it forever (which I am), or buy something to do it.
I'm not the only customer that likes Storage Console, either. Seems to
me that I have heard only good things from other people on this list
about it. It's _not_ a magic bullet. If it was, there wouldn't be other
products out there, but it's damn good at what it does. we looked at a
half a dozen products over 6 - 8 months before buying it because it was
the best one out there for us. It might not be the right solution for
you.
So before labeling me as a shill, try to keep in mind that I'm an
overworked, underpaid NBU admin like the rest of the poor saps on this
list. We all have the same problems with NBU, we've all been there at
crunch time trying to explain why a file wasn't recoverable. backups
suck, plain and simple. No one cares about it until it's too late, and
then it's YOUR head because some moron neglected to mention that new
mountpoint. I have 6 Master servers with 18 media servers backing up
1400 client machines in 3 different geographic locations. Ever try
running 6 Java GUI's at the same time?
I'm simply stating that a product that *I* recommended my company
purchase, because it will make our awareness of our environment better
so our customers' data is protected, has come out with a new feature
that makes it that much better. I _still_ recommend anyone that needs a
good NBU reporting tool really should take a look at Aptare's product.
--=20
David Rock
david AT graniteweb DOT com
--1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCjVLMMrO4/Yb/xwYRAoKhAKCznwDQHuO9MnMg4oNvovH8MKCDOgCeIN12
ka0z3ozIp6fy7tLxeR5PieQ=
=ucJM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY--
|
