Networker

Re: [Networker] browsing and retention policies

2009-06-16 10:37:10
Subject: Re: [Networker] browsing and retention policies
From: "Landwehr, Jerome" <jlandweh AT HARRIS DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:27:34 -0400
we have shorter browse to keep the index at a somewhat manageable size

we have a 2 year browse policy and 10 year retention

the live index grows to almost a TB as is and any old restore requires
reading the (old) index off of an old tape with nsrck -L7

HTH
Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of David Magda
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:30 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] browsing and retention policies


Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why one would have a
browse policy that's difference than the retention policy?

I can perhaps see a browsing period that's longer, so you can have some
historical information on how / when backups occur. But what good is
retaining the save sets if they're not in the index? Running 'scanner'
seems like a waste of time.

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