Networker

Re: [Networker] Retention policies revisited (need advice)...

2003-07-18 19:51:52
Subject: Re: [Networker] Retention policies revisited (need advice)...
From: "Shelley L. Shostak" <sls AT QSTECH DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:51:42 -0700
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Michael Brooks wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Networker] Retention policies revisited (need advice)...
>
> i would like to confirm that this method solves the problem for backups.
> however, if you are cloning these savesets then you will find that the
> cloned media will "revert" to the longer retention period. this is due to
> the fact that when you attempt to create a clone pool that "captures"
> bootstraps and indexes, you will find that you are unable to specify the
> groups to attach it to. this is a known bug to legato (RFE LGTpa35740), and
> they state it will be fixed in the next release.
>

Hi Michael,

A stand alone tape drive vs a juke box is irrelavent.  Even if you use a
jukebox, you still need a monkey to remove the tape daily or you risk the loss
of data should the tape be damaged in some way.  If you have backups with many
clients and just a few drives, you end up wasting valuable time waiting for a
tape for index.  In this instance, you would want to not save indexes but kick
off a script after the backups complete that saves the indexes.  If you have a
separate drive, the index tape is always mounted and you can avoid this
problem.

The addition of having scripts run after each client completes is great.  Now
if they would expand this feature to groups, it would be great.

Shelley

--
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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=