On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:25:25PM +0200, Steffen Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> By now we have a prototype backup solution in place,
> using the coda-provided scripts and tools and a
> standalone SCSI Tape.
>
> Ideally we'd like to shove the workload to our
> computing support group, who do backups using
> a Veritas NetBackup solution.
>
> However, they're a little reluctant
> to move the volume files as full dumps
> (even if they're incrementals themselves),
Why would it matter whether "dump" or "volutil dump" produces a blob of
data (either full or incremental).
> Apart from continuing the standalone system:
>
> would it be feasable to use an afs-veritas client ?
> Of course that depends on their implementation,
> which I don't know about.
I wouldn't expect that to be feasable, different communication
protocols, very different metadata (AFS doesn't have versionvectors).
> The Amanda backup, as far as I got it, also lack file indexing. Things
> are a two-level theme, still. Is that correct ?
Yeah, there is as yet no utility that can pull a single file out of a
volume dump, so there is not much use for file indexing. However, most
accidental file losses are covered by mounting the backup volume under
"OldFiles".
F.i. when /coda/usr/jaharkes is the volume "vmm:u.jaharkes",
cfs mkm /coda/usr/jaharkes/OldFiles vmm:u.jaharkes.0.backup
The backup volume is 're-cloned' everytime backups are done. So it would
normally contains yesterdays files. This saves a lot of going back to
tape for a single file situations in case of user error.
The case of losing a complete server is either solved by resolving with
other replicas (again no need for tapes), or restore full dumps anyways.
Jan
