>>> 1. They want to keep backup tapes (even differentials) forever. (No 
>>> regulations require this.)
>>>
>>
>> Ask why they want to do this.  You were not in the meeting where they 
>> decided to do this.  They should be happy to tell you.
> 
> Include an estimate for the cost of tapes for one year of backups, as 
> well. Don't forget the cost of storing them securely off-site.


hundred pounds per year.

Interestingly, I worked out that based on the dimensions of an LTO tape 
[not sure if this is with or without case] you can store enough takes in 
1 m^2 for 360 years of backups. :^}

Neither of these arguments look particularly compelling. It's more the 
fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO DO THIS that annoys me...

>>> 2. They want to allow the vagaries of the Gregorian calendar and its 
>>> lack of synchronisation with the 7-day week affect when our backups 
>>> do and don't happen.
>>
>> Ask why?
> 
> That honestly doesn't seem too problematic to me.

I just dislike having the backup frequency vary at random, that's all. 
The idea of keeping hold of these backups is so that we can go back. I'd 
really hate to say "gee, I can't restore that file because that 
particular month was a day longer than the others".

>>> 4. They want to verify that tape restoration works by restoring a 
>>> standardised, unchanging 0.09 KB file and performing a visual 
>>> inspection to check that it "looks the same". (In fairness, if the 
>>> backup software says it's restored, you can be 99% sure it's fine. 
>>> Usually if there's a problem the software will complain that it 
>>> "can't" restore the file, rather than restore gibberish. But even so...)
>>
>> Be nice, and give constructive feedback.
> 
> Again, shouldn't be hard. Ask if you can back up the file then use an 
> automated comparison rather than a visual comparison to make sure it 
> worked.

I suggested MD5 hashes or something would be a good idea. I even 
suggested a procedure for using 'em...

>>> 5. The order in which tapes are run is not clearly described. In 
>>> fact, the relevant section is utterly incomprehensible. Surely *they* 
>>> know what they meant - but *I* haven't got a clue!
>>>
>>
>> Ask for clarification.
> 
> Exactly, yes. Then, create a chart for a couple months of backups, and 
> include it and say "please check that I have correctly paraphrased your 
> instructions."  Then follow the chart if they say it's OK.

That's the amusing part - there *is* a chart in the document! It just 
doesn't make any *sense*. :-/

> Yeah, these don't seem like WTF problems as much as "we didn't write 
> down everything we talked about".

Highly likely. But hey, that's why we review these things...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message