All the previous points about NOT doing fullbackups and only incrementals are good and valid and I agree with them.
I want to add what's been said here in the past but missed this time.
We are not in the backup business we are in the restore business.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WHAT YOU DO TO MAKE RESTORES FAST & EFFICIENT
i.e. if your goal is fast and efficient restores that include
full disaster recovery restores.
You can achieve this with COLLOCATION
BUT BUT BUT only if you do it 'right' which must be to have 'enough' tapes
and keep fine tuning their use.
Understand COLLOCATION completely to take true advantage of it.
If your reply to this is:
"Yeah, but we want to go back 6 months if ... blah blah .."
And my response to that is :
Now you're not talking about backups and restores!!!
You're talking about archives and retrieves!
Don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver!!!
Attached is a word document of some info I'm turning over to my
management (if they care to read it) about this goal that I hope
they take to heart after I've started my retirement in March and
am no longer available. :-)
Joseph A Faracchio, Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley
Private mail on any topic should be directed to :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(510)642-7638 (w) (209)483-JOEF (M)
5633
99 days of employment left , 99 days
take one down and pass it around
98 days of employemnt left .... :-)
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Adam J Boyer wrote:
> > Hey,
> > Our management is wondering if it's safe to just do incrementals
> > forever, or whether we should try to do a forced full every few months
> > to keep things fresh. Our experience has been that the incremental
> > system works great-- we once restored a whole raid 5 array, with many
> > files from years ago. But, nonetheless, I'd appreciate any stories or
> > testaments to help build a case.
> >
> > Thanks much,
> > adam
> >
Tuning practices for the ucbackup system.doc
Description: MS-Word document
