> We had looked at keeping on line copies on disk and taking a copy off
> site, but with 7.2 the retention times for an original and either staged
> or cloned copy was the same. As I understand it, the database was
> modified in 7.3, allowing separate retention times for multiple copies
> of a save set, allowing a disk copy to have a short retention time, and
> an offsite tape copy for example to have a longer retention time.
Right. Multiple copies on tape, multiple retention periods. So the
separate copies can be recycled at independent times.
> As I understand it, even if we go to 7.3, we are still going to be hit
> by the browse time for multiple copies ? I would have though there would
> be a one -to-one relationship to unique saveset copies for browse times
> as there it for retention times ?
I don't see why there should be.
There's only one copy of the file information (in the online catalog),
so there's only one browse period. There's not a separate copy of the
file index for each clone.
How would making multiple browse periods for a cloned saveset help you?
> I ask, because we will be hit by this if this problem still exists and
> there is no workaround.
How does this problem affect you? I would assume that you would set the
browse period to be equal to the longest you will require being able to
browse.
--
Darren Dunham ddunham AT taos DOT com
Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the
body of the email. Please write to networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu
if you have any problems
wit this list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
|