Thank you Ken. That is the sense I was trying to convey I received some very unsettling personal news today; I was too distracted with that to give a more cogent reply.
On Sep 13, 2013, at 21:09, "Ken Schaefer" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Daniel's saying that this technology creates an active-passive set of > servers. The "clone" is a passive standby or replica server of the > live/active server. > > When activating a replica or standby server there may not be a "restore" task > in the process - it might simply be an "activation" task to bring the replica > online or make it the active copy. > > Not sure if that's exactly what Daniel meant, but that's the general vibe I > was getting. > > Cheers > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Ben Scott > Sent: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] In defense of image-based VM backups > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Chenault <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's the point of the "hot clone" (I'm stealing that). It's an exact >> image of the running server including any changes such as you describe >> current up to the last transmitted packet. There is no restore. > > If there's no restore then why are you bothering cloning? > > -- Ben > > > >
