On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 at 2:46pm, Toralf Lund wrote

Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:

To throw my $.02 in here, the situations would be very different. If one is "forced" to have all DLEs "tapeable" in one amdump run, then (theoretically), nothing will be left on the holding disk to lose should said disk die.

But we're talking about a situation where the DLEs are not "tapeable". The

Maybe it's just me being curmudgeonly (it wouldn't be the first time -- hell, I haven't found a WM I like more than fvwm2) and slavishly adhering to the KISS method. But I think backups *should* adhere to the KISS method.

Normally I would agree, but I have to back up 3Tb of data organised as one single volume. The only "simple" option would be to have one 3Tb tape as well, but such a thing isn't available (to me at least.) Also, I think the whole tape splitting concept is inherently complex, and what I suggest here doesn't change the complexity level. The complexity was introduced already, I'm just talking about a *simple* implementation adjustment...

I agree that it doesn't change the complexity level.  But it does change
the safety level.  Suddenly you're making yourself far more vulnerable to
losing parts of a backup image.

--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University