Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+Separate\s+Pools\s+for\s+Incrementals\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+Separate\s+Pools\s+for\s+Incrementals\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Networker] Separate Pools for Incrementals? (score: 1): Author: JGillTech <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:14:42 -0500; I have the standard schedule Monday - Saturday incremental, with full backups on Sunday. I only have 20 clients, well within my backup window. Both browse and retention are 2-months, with monthly clo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2009-01/msg00026.html (11,798 bytes)
2. Re: [Networker] Separate Pools for Incrementals? (score: 1): Author: Stan Horwitz <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:01:30 -0500; Just off the top of my head, the only reason to separate full and incremental backups into separate pools is if you wanted to send just the full backup tapes off-site, but leave the incremental back; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2009-01/msg00028.html (12,222 bytes)
3. Re: [Networker] Separate Pools for Incrementals? (score: 1): Author: Chester Martin <cmartin AT SPP DOT ORG>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:23:47 -0600; If you ever decide to have different retention times for full and incremental backups you would separate them so you wouldn't waste tape space, but if you don't plan on doing that you should be good; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2009-01/msg00037.html (13,434 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]