On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> Unfortunately our customer with the highes capacity needs stores
> precompressed data of several GB per month and wants them all
> available on disk. So we need to plan for full dumps of 100 GB
> and maybe even more. That's why I'd prefer a tape solution that
> gets 200 GB of data on a tape.
>
> For the curious: webserver logfiles - they want at least one
> year's worth of that available online for analysis ... marketing types ;-)
You _might_ want to consider modifying your strategy here. What
you're describing is really an archive of static data. Why beat
your backup hardware/software up over it when it's static logs?
How about something like this. At end of each month, move current
month's logs into your online archive and cut a tape, perhaps with
duplicates if you prefer the extra security, of just the new bits.
Add tape to your tape archive. Don't bother making periodic backups
of data in the archive, since you've already got it on both disk and
tape, and it's not changing anyway.
Alternatively, if the above just won't cut it for whatever reason,
and you want to/have to keep this archival data in your regular
backup cycle, this seems like one time when the current amanda
workaround for filesystems too large for one tape will work quite
well. This being the "use tar and make separate entries in disklist
for each top-level directory" approach.
-Mitch
