-- Andrius
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Gene Heskett <[email protected]> wrote: so when 500Gig and up hard drives became available, I converted to vtapes > on a hard drive, which has turned out to be, dollar for dollar, about 100x > more dependable, Awesome, that answers another question I had - "Why use tapes these days?" > Linux has excellent drive health drive monitoring utilities, so the 3 drive > failures I have had since converting about 8 or 9 years ago, has always > given me sufficient warning that no data has been lost, not a byte. > Yes it does. Though I'm running a mostly FreeBSD shop and I just recently started using zfs primarily because of its mirroring/data correction capabilities, which I find very valuable in these days of >1TB HDDs. Speaking of which, I see that amanda has a amzfs-sendrecv function, which I presume is a wrapper around getting zfs snapshots stored somewhere. But I'm not yet clear on how it (zfs/sendrecv) "fits" in amanda's backup scheme. Would it simply take snapshots and save them on a (v)tape? And when it comes time to recover, I would guess that amrecover would rebuild the fs by restoring snapshot deltas? Sounds like some more reading in this facet is needed. > Then about 12 years back I realized that a bare metal recovery to a newly > formatted operating drive would always be a 1 days loss because the amanda > data would also be lost, what was on the tapes was a day old, I wrote some > wrapper scripts that make a tarball each of the instant configuration > directory, and a tarball of the data directory amanda keeps and appends > them both to the tape just used, so that when doing the full recovery, it > started from the last known good state. Good one! I'll keep that in mind when building the backup system. > Unfortunately, even with the binlog enabled, some of the queries don't > > get recorded (long story), > > And one that needs attended to in case forensics are required. > > Totally. It's just one of those problems inherited from the previous DBA/SA > > > > Another part of my backup plan is going to have two configs. One for > > the database instance ('hypercritical data') that will be backed up > > insanely often, and another config for merely really important data > > (svn repos, wikis, etc) which will have a less taxing schedule. > > Separate configs need separate storage, you cannot mix tapes if you want to > keep your sanity. Let each amanda config keep its own database and its own > named tapes. Its really quite good at it. > > I'm not quite clear on your response. Creating a separate storage volume isn't a problem since I'm using vtapes. Do you mean that it would be easier to have one config to rule them all? Where "them" are the different priority files and "them" are different clients backing up to the backup server. Or would it make more sense to have separate configs, e.g. CriticalDatabasesOnHost1_config, ImportantFilesOnHost1_config, ImportantFilesOnHost2_config, MiscFilesOnHost3_config, etc ? > > > Thats my $0.02, but adjust for inflation since 1934. Yeah, I'm an older > user. ;-) > > Thanks so much for your input Gene! And, that just goes to show how much value can be found in $0.02 from an older user. :) Your 2 pennies are worth $4.94 !! > Cheers, Gene > -- > "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: > soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." > -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene> > > "I'd love to go out with you, but my favorite commercial is on TV." > A pen in the hand of this president is far more > dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of > law-abiding citizens. >
