Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?
2003-04-23 10:04:42
Geez...I also thought it de-muxed the original data and wrote
consecutive blocks. That's why I think this list is such a great
resource.
I just compared an "original" tape with its "clone" and the datablocks
are virtually the same in terms of interleaving.
I was hoping my clone tapes would recover "faster" than the original.
I know that I can still achieve that if I want to clone all ssid's for
one particular client one-at-a-time.
I'm going to try the "staging" concept --> then clone to tape --> then
clone the clone tape (for verification) and finally send the "verified"
tape offsite for disaster recovery protection.
Thanks all...
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Fisher [mailto:jfisher AT WFUBMC DOT EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 8:55 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?
Doh... That's what I was looking for... I didn't even think about mminfo
being able to return that data.
I just checked a couple of my clone volumes and there is indeed
interleaving on those volumes.
Thanks GDM!!!
Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Giles Malet - IST [mailto:gdmalet AT IST.UWATERLOO DOT CA]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:39 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?
"Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen AT KVAERNER DOT COM> writes:
> The story we have been told is that cloning untangles the savesets and
> optimizes them for recover.
I heard that too, didn't trust it, and simply listed a tape. Do
something like:
# mminfo -av \
-r'volume,cloneid,mediafile,mediarec,client,name,fragsize,sumsize,totals
ize' \
yourclonevolume
and take note of the file/record numbers, and the fact that you'll see
duplicated client/name/cloneids, due to the interleaving. For example,
for a tape created by listing an original tape, gathering all the
ssids into a file, and then running `nsrclone -f file ..' I see the
following (having trimmed the above command a bit):
# mminfo -av -r'volume,cloneid,mediafile,mediarec,client,name,fragsize'
240516 | head -20
volume clone id file rec client name
size
240516 1051083189 2 1 lagavulin /files6
6584 MB
240516 1051086778 2 1 soar /datasets
3960 MB
240516 1051086187 2 1 sun580 /fsys1
1925 MB
240516 1051079822 2 1 sunwise /usr1
213 MB
240516 1051083509 2 1 temagami /home
1846 MB
240516 1051087831 2 1 thunderbox /u2
1181 MB
240516 1051084462 2 1 tyrant /fsys2
4303 MB
240516 1051080556 2 1 uwcfd /export/home
187 MB
240516 1051082754 2 1 uwdepot E:\
4156 MB
240516 1051083189 3 0 lagavulin /files6
6645 MB
240516 1051087831 3 0 thunderbox /u2
1202 MB
240516 1051084462 3 0 tyrant /fsys2
4354 MB
240516 1051082754 3 0 uwdepot E:\
4197 MB
240516 1051086187 3 1 sun580 /fsys1
1943 MB
240516 1051083509 3 1 temagami /home
1864 MB
240516 1051080556 3 4 uwcfd /export/home
188 MB
240516 1051086778 3 6 soar /datasets
4026 MB
240516 1051079822 3 58 sunwise /usr1
214 MB
240516 1051083189 4 0 lagavulin /files6
6697 MB
There's some obvious interleaving there. Note lagavulin for example.
Perhaps some other command causes the interleaving to be removed? That
would make cloning real slow.
gdm
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via
email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via
email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, (continued)
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Tarjei T. Jensen
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Gaddy
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Tarjei T. Jensen
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Gregory Demilde - System Support Engineer
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?,
Dale Mayes <=
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Terry Lemons
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Peacock, Tom
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Tarjei T. Jensen
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Peacock, Tom
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Joel Fisher
- Re: [Networker] Merits of cloning versus dual backups?, Terry Clayton
|
|
|