>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:08:27 -0500, Richard Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Allen - The elevated number of tapes would be the biggest issue... I think I'd be using the same amount. Or rather: If I were writing to separate tape volumes every time, I'd be using the same amount. The comparison would be: Day Fulls Incrementals 0 New tape for full New tape for full 1 New tape for full New tape for incr 2 New tape for full New tape for incr 3 New tape for full New tape for full However, I'm not doing it that way: I'm backing up all of my TSM DBs to remote server volumes, and guarding against media failure by copying them all over hell's half-acre. I'd win big, because my week's DB backup retention would go from 7xfull backup to (on the average) 3xfull, 6xincrementals. I'd probably cut my total DB backup storage by more than 50%. > But db incrementals do work well, so there's no functionality problem. Yeah, I don't think the use of the incrementals would be fragile, but I figured it needed a line-item, if only so it could be dismissed in style. Thanks, Richard! - Allen S. Rout
