Frank, Tom, I was thinking the same thing, though where possible I have a couple of extra anyway (2 x runs/cycle + N) for small values of N.
Tom, whatever I said, ignore it, you are in reasonable good shape, you have fallback. > --On Thursday, October 16, 2003 16:25:48 +0100 Tom Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > tapecycle 20 tapes: > >> > number of tapes to use per dumpcycle of 2 weeks. 10 tapes X 2 dumpcycles > > = > >> > 20 tapes. > >> > >> Yes, but you really should have an extra tape or two in there to lessen > >> the chance of a failed backup overwriting your last full backup. You > >> should really consider doubling that number so you always have two copies > >> in case one should error on a restore (in which case you would lose your > >> newest data but you could at least still recover older files.). > > > > really? in my case i allways have tapecycle as dumpcycle*runspercycle > > > > is that bad? > > Sorry, it was too early in the morning for me to comprehend. I somehow > got the idea that his tapecycle = runspercycle, completely missing the > fact he had double the runspercycle. > > Having extra tapes never hurts, though. > > Frank > > > > e.g ... > > > > dumpcycle 1 weeks # the number of days in the normal dump cycle > > runspercycle 5 # the number of amdump runs in dumpcycle days > > # (4 weeks * 5 amdump runs per week -- just > > weekdays) > > tapecycle 5 tapes # the number of tapes in rotation > > > > or another config.... > > > > dumpcycle 2 weeks # the number of days in the normal dump cycle > > runspercycle 10 # the number of amdump runs in dumpcycle days > > # (4 weeks * 5 amdump runs per week -- just > > weekdays) > > tapecycle 10 tapes # the number of tapes in rotation > > > > > > -- > Frank Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 > Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501 >
