Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 at 11:54pm, Mark Schoonover wrote
>
> I really didn't mean for this to turn into a tape vs. disk based
> backups debate -- everyone has their own needs and ways of meeting
> them. But I have to disagree with the following:
>
>> Tape backups require user intervention everyday. There's no way
>> around it, especially if you're testing your backups for reliability.
>
> No, they don't. With a library, you only need to change tapes when
> you're out of slots (if then, depending on your library, dataset
> size, retention needs, etc). And any decent backup software should
> have some sort of verification built in or easily scripted.
If you rely solely on your tape software verification to tell you your tapes
are 100%, there will come a day, you'll be in for a surprise. The only 100%
sure fire way to determine if your tapes are good is to actually restore
from them back to a drive, and open them with the applications that created
those files. Only after that kind of testing, can you be sure your tapes are
good. I've had many tapes verified from the days of Arcserve, through
Brightstor, Arkeia, CTAR and BRU. All of these backup software systems ran,
and verified flawlessly, then a disaster struck only to find out my verified
tapes actually had problems with them.
Now, the $64K is, how many files do you need to test?? :)
Thanks!
Mark Schoonover *** Winner of the 2008 Best Psychic Award
IS Manager
American Geotechnical - California, Nevada and Arizona
V-> 858.450.4040 F-> 714.685.3909 C-> 858.472.3816
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
