From: Kevin Whittaker
[mailto:Kevin.Whittaker AT syniverse DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008
12:39 PM
To: Curtis
Preston; Rosenkoetter, Gabriel;
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Is BMR
worth it / How long does it really save you?
A shameless plug for your book, but no
special discount code for us fellow backupcentral people? ;-)
From:
veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008
2:52 PM
To: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel;
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Is BMR
worth it / How long does it really save you?
Gabe said:
>That said, I haven't seen any reason to switch from an
existing, documented, and internally-understood
>HP-UX systems recovery that relies on the (HP)
vendor-supplied sys_recover bits, but
>BMR's definitely a win for OSes with less mature ways to
do this (Windows, Linux) and
>probably for places where you aren't already doing
something that works.
HP-UX system recovery, AIX mksysb, & Solaris Flasharchive are all
well-documented systems that work very well for recovering the OS to its
current state. (Ahem, all covered very nicely in my book, BTW. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102461/backupcentral0d
)
The advantage to BMR is not having to do a
separate backup for that purpose, and being much more automated. My
experience has been that, even though those methods work very well, the fact
that you have to do a separate backup for them to work makes them usually out
of date very quickly. With BMR, your system recovery info gets updated
every time you do a backup. That’s as good as it’s going to
get.
