* Steve Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:03:02:16:18:51+1000] scribed: > Weird requirement. > > Not something that I'd recommend. And I don't see the logic for having > only part of the data, but, its an intellectual challenge as to how > this can be done. > > Try this > > Set up a random diskpool big enough to hold one nights backup. Point > backup at this.
OK > Set up a main sequential file diskpool. Make this the nextstg of the > nightly pool with manually controlled migration between the two. OK > Each day, run a backup stg from the nightly pool to the tape pool and > send the tapes off site. Will this contain _only_ new files and files that have changed since last backup? > Then migrate the nightly pool to the main pool. OK > Script a tape return process keyed on the state and update date of the > drmedia table. OK > When the tapes come back, run a delete vol discardd=yes on them. OK Now that I have studied your suggestion, and understand it, I recognize its value. Thank you. However, I wonder what value these tapes have, since -- by themselves -- they are incomplete and cannot facilitate recovery. How do most sites implement rotating tapes offsite? It seems to me, that since my client uses their disk array(s) like sites I have seen use tapes, the only real difference is how to create those tapes that are to be taken offsite. What am I missing? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
