Re: [Networker] ALL Clients suddenly started failing
2008-10-06 10:25:23
While I agree that maintaining a client host file is a PITA.... It's not that
much effort in my experience... And worth it in the long run. Unless you have a
very dynamic network with backup clients constantly being added / removed....
I feel it's more practical than naïve... I now have a weekend of failed backups
due to failed DNS lookups... I have no control over the DNS server... As long
as the client is up and responding on the proper ports, Networker should simply
back it up.... What does it matter if the reverse lookup fails, and how is that
more significant than backing up your companies' data ???
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion
> [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On Behalf Of Davina Treiber
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:09 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Networker] ALL Clients suddenly started failing
>
> Goslin, Paul wrote:
> > I was afraid of this.... Of course it's working flawlessly now....
> >
> > Whomever decided to make Networker dependent on an outside
> service like DNS made a very foolish decision IMHO... In a
> Disaster Recovery situation, you're not always going to have
> DNS up and working, it's just one more requirement you have
> to provide for and sometimes it can be very hard to provide.
> Making your BACKUPS DEPENDANT on DNS is STUPID !!! I liked
> the old EMC EDM product where you maintained your own host
> file for client name resolution and did not depend on an
> outside service like DNS. Backup processes and procedures
> should be self-sufficient , period ....
>
> That's a rather naive comment. The whole Internet depends on
> DNS, as do most company networks. It's not just NetWorker
> that depends on it.
>
> If you really want to, you can run NetWorker entirely with
> hosts files, it will work without DNS, that's if you want to
> waste most of your working time maintaining dozens or
> hundreds of hosts files, keeping them in sync, tracking down
> discrepancies etc. I have worked in such an environment and
> can say with confidence that DNS is preferable.
>
> 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 with 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
>
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 with 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
|
|
|