Thanks for your comments. You raise some very valid issues, but I probably
wasn't verbose enough to adequately describe my strategy.
on 23/2/01 7:51 PM, David Ross at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The major problem with using a disk drive duplication backup strategy is
> that it leaves a lot of holes.
> 1. You're w/o a backup while the current one is running. So if things
> die during the backup ....
Agreed, but I don't duplicate ... I use a combination of recycle and normal
backups. The act of recycle will erase the previous backup, but I will come
to that. After the recycle the rest of the week is normals so it adds to
the backup set ... it does not replace it. You may recall that I size my
second drive to hold a full backup plus a week of incrementals.
> 2. You can't go back in time to get a file that you didn't notice was
> missing or corrupted till after the last backup.
Within the week I can as I do the recycle on Sunday, then nightly
incrementals. On Saturday night I backup the "backup" disk to tape so I can
store the previous weeks backups off site. This is done before the disk
based backup set is recycled.
> 3. Destruction of the primary system has a good chance of destroying the
> backup drive.
Agreed, but I never said that they were on the same machine ... in most of
my installations the backup disk and tape drive are in the "Backup Server"
... the "source" is elsewhere on the network.
In a single machine situation both disks might be be destroyed but a
connected tape drive will likely suffer the same fate.
The key is to do backups and do them often. I find changing media a pain
... my strategy is based on the desire to do daily backups, but to only
change removeable media weekly.
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.