Why don't you do a second incremental (with a different nodename) every day/night with a management class that allows only 1 version? Result would be nearly continous tapes with the data you need for recovery. (together with collacation) The problem with backupsets is that their generation needs a lot of tape and cpu time and after a short time the bs are outdated. With Regards, Stefan Holzwarth > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Steve Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2000 00:18 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: Monthly Full backups > > This "once a month snapshot" idea is a hangover from old > manual tape handling procedures > The user attitude is that they want exactly the same > functionality that they had, whether or not it is needed. > > I'm still fighting the good fight on this one, but one way to > handle this is to set retonly to be 13 months (or whatever > retention period they want the monthly backups to last) and > just get them to name or rename their long term storage files > to something unique e.g. with a date in it) and then delete > it after is backed up. i.e. files that are "machine > generated" with unique names effectively provide a long-term > storage facility without extra TSM admin hassles. > > Steve. > > >>> "Gill, Geoffrey L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20/12/2000 > 5:18:37 >>> > >We have some users who want to do full monthly backups and keep these > >separate from the normal backups (ie. do a backup once a month > >and keep for > >1 year). > > > >We do this via the Archive, but it has it's limitations: > >- must specify each drive letter/ file system > >- can't archive all of the WIN2K System Ojbects > > I also do "monthly archives" for some of our people, with > more coming. In my > opinion, and this is the way I specify to my customers, an archive is > supposed to be the data that is most important to their > contract/work. To me > this means you can probably eliminate the C: drive altogether. > > I don't see that as a limitation, instead I see it as the > best way to keep > people from archiving superfulous things that just take up > space in the > database anyway. Just think how fast that many objects can > add up if you > have 100 or so clients to archive. A "full monthly backup" is > probably not > going to be used for anything by the time 9 months has gone > by. Who in the > world would want to recover a system that far in the past? I > believe it's > the customer data they'd be looking for so why not just > archive that to > begin with? > > Geoff > Just my thoughts, I know not everyone will agree.... >
