ADSM-L

Re: AFS backups - still confused

1998-09-22 13:41:05
Subject: Re: AFS backups - still confused
From: Steven P Roder <tkssteve AT REXX.ACSU.BUFFALO DOT EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:41:05 -0400
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Pat Wilson wrote:
> How do you detect mountpoint loops when they happen?  I've only
> got 3400 volumes, but the manual-suggested "define a virtual
> mountpoint for each volume" would seem to be execessive...

I haven't had any (yet), but I would guess that the adsm backups would
never finish.  I have about 28 virtual mountpoints selected at stategic
locations within our DFS tree.  User filesets are organized across the
letters of the alphabet, and we have a couple other for software.

> How about disaster recovery restores?  If I'm backing up with
> dsm*afs, how do I recover, say, all the volumes on a particular
> vice partition?

Certainly DR will be easier with the buta/butc method, as ADSM has less
objects to worry about.  Using dsm*afs would work the same as any other
client recovery, based on your virtualmountpoints.  This also means that
it would be slower due to lots of files to restore.  This is also why we
have complete redundancy within our DFS server.  All disks are mirrored,
and all hardware is replicated, such that a machine failure will cause a
switch to another machine, which also has access to all of the data.  We
use Sun's Clustering software for this, and it isn't cheap.  Therefore,
ADSM is not expected to have to completly recover the DFS fileserver,
although in theory, it should be able to.  ADSM is mainly there for ad-hoc
file recoveries.

Hope this helps,


> Steven P Roder <tkssteve AT REXX.ACSU.BUFFALO DOT EDU> writes:
> >  Hi All,
> >
> >       We backup our DFS filesets via ADSM as mountpoints on an AIX box, as
> >  we run the Sun Server, and the Sun Client does not have DFS support.  We
> >  are doing it this way because the buta tools only backup/restore at the
> >  fileset level, and we do not want to have to restore entire filesets to
> >  alternate locations, and then grovel through that looking for one file.
> >  ADSM gives us file-level detail, as well as a single tool, as Curtis
> >  points out.  There are some caveats with using ADSM this way, like the
> >  user being able to change the ACL's such that we cannot back the file up,
> >  and the user creating a loop in the filesystem by creating a mountpoint
> >  that points back into the tree, but we see these as more managable
> >  problems than using buta/butc.
> >
> >  Hope this helps,
> >
> >
> >  On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Magura, Curtis wrote:
> >  > Pat,
> >  >
> >  >    We plan to use ADSM to backup our AFS cell just haven't yet. The 
> > primar
> y
> >  > reason is to have one tool, one interface, one place to verify all backup
> /
> >  > recovery activity. At least that's we think it's going to do for us. Alos
> >  > gives us access to a tape library. We are using an IBM 3575. I agree it 
> > do
> es
> >  > seem to add a layer of complexity to it though. Actually that's one of 
> > the
> >  > reasons the AFS backup's aren't done yet. I would love to hear from 
> > anyone
> >  > on the list that's using ADSM to backup AFS or DFS and what they have
> >  > learned.
> >  >
> >  > Why would/does anyone use the ADSM AFS backup clients (as opposed to
> >  > just using buta and the AFS backup suite)?  Seems like dsm(c)afs
> >  > just adds complexity, and you don't get backup by volumes...
> >  >
> >  > Thanks.
> >  >
> >  > Pat Wilson
> >
> >
> >  Steve (unVMix Systems Programmer/Dude) Roder
> >  (tkssteve AT ubvm.cc.buffalo DOT edu | tkssteve AT acsu.buffalo DOT edu | 
> > (716)645-3564 ,
> >     | http://ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu/~tkssteve)
>
>


Steve (unVMix Systems Programmer/Dude) Roder
(tkssteve AT ubvm.cc.buffalo DOT edu | tkssteve AT acsu.buffalo DOT edu | 
(716)645-3564 ,
   | http://ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu/~tkssteve)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>