You are dead right of course. Disasters don't come on schedule, neatly tied up in a bow.
A good thing might be a brainstorming session on "what are our implicit disaster-related assumptions?" and then questioning those assumptions. Charles Composed on a mobile: please excuse my brevity "Staller, Allan" <[email protected]> wrote: >Although very few shops actually do this, IMO the procedure should be: > >Management walks in the room and says " You, you, and you are dead as of >"time/date". The rest of you go recover as of that time/date." >The "dead people" cannot be consulted with during the DR exercise. "You, you, >and you" should be different during each iteration of the test. >After the fact, procedures/documentation are analyzed and updated based on the >results. > >In too many cases, I have seen "staged" recoveries, whereby the data is all >snapshot'ed at the end of a "cycle" and neatly tied up in a package. >The same "crew" is used repeatedly and becomes very familiar with all of the >procedures, and actually tests nothing new. >All that is proven in this case is your applications can run on other >compatible hardware. > >I have deliberately ignored the data questions, as your configuration is >nothing like mine. > >Just my $0.02 USD worth. > >HTH, > ><snip> >I am looking to see how other shops are currently doing Backups for DR and OR. > I think this will be valuable for the archives. ></snip> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
