Gabe said:
>That said, I haven't seen any reason to switch from an
existing, documented, and internally-understood
>HP-UX systems recovery that relies on the (HP)
vendor-supplied sys_recover bits, but
>BMR's definitely a win for OSes with less mature ways to
do this (Windows, Linux) and
>probably for places where you aren't already doing
something that works.
HP-UX system recovery, AIX mksysb, & Solaris Flasharchive are all
well-documented systems that work very well for recovering the OS to its
current state. (Ahem, all covered very nicely in my book, BTW. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102461/backupcentral0d
)
The advantage to BMR is not having to do a
separate backup for that purpose, and being much more automated. My experience
has been that, even though those methods work very well, the fact that you have
to do a separate backup for them to work makes them usually out of date very
quickly. With BMR, your system recovery info gets updated every time you do a
backup. That’s as good as it’s going to get.
