 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> It has a flavour...
>
> That must be some British expression I'm not familiar with...
That's a lolcats expression, with British spelling.
see: http://www.icanhascheezburger.com
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:43:43 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> What do you use to back up data?
Backup Exec is popular.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:09:41 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> No, the limitation I'm running into now is space, not time.
>>
>> Buy some bigger tapes then, or more of the current ones?
>
> DDS only goes up to a maximum of 80 GB. My server holds 103 GB. Time to
> move to a different tape technology - but which one? There are many to
> choose from.
Modern AIT drives are quite popular.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:57:35 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I guess we *could* back up to a hard drive. But I'm not really that keen
> on the idea. We would have to shut the server down to connect the drive,
> start it back up again, format the drive, copy all the data, somehow
> verify the data, shut the server down, disconnect the drive, put it
> somewhere safe, and start up the server again. Every single night. No
> thanks...
Mirroring - or connect devices to a SAN and mirror across multiple SAN
devices.
Even iSCSI devices being mirrored would give you some real-time
recovery. No need to connect/disconnect. Heck, for my server here at
home, I run a shell script to dump the contents of important directories
on the internal drive to an external 1 TB USB device.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:34:22 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Not quite, no. The maximum tape size our system can take is 36 GB. The
> next model up will handle 80 GB, and there *is* no higher model after
> that. So I think we need to move to another technology.
Or a drive with a tape autoloader. I know Compaq used to sell something
like this for DDS2 DAT tapes (I've got one such device in my basement, in
fact - pity DAT drive technology is poor at best for backups, I burned
the heads out as I was testing a version of Arcserve years ago).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:19:56 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> Experience. Do you really think you can rewrite a tape 10,000 times?
>
> Well, most of the tapes we own were put into service long before I
> joined the company, and they're still going strong. (Now and then we
> have a tape go dud and I replace it.) That's plenty long enough for
> me...
From my own experience, verify your tapes. Seriously, you may not be
getting errors on the tape during backup, but restoring them might be a
problem if they've worn out. I got bitten by that about 10 years ago (so
maybe it's better now). Remember the job I got suspended from for a week
that I told you about? That was why - the backups were no good, even
though there was no indication during backup *or* verification that there
was a problem. But when I tried to actually restore them, the tapes
couldn't be read.
I suspect the verification was some sort of drive-based checksum that
came back rather than a real verification of data bit-by-bit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:10:27 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Yah, I was right. They're sending us an LTO-1 robotic library.
This is a good idea.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:40:28 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:10:27 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
> spake, saying:
>
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> [I imagine this one is going to be dictated to me by HQ, but I'm
>>> curios...]
>>
>> Yah, I was right. They're sending us an LTO-1 robotic library.
>
> That's a shame I thought they were going to suggest using 5 (or 7) hot
> swap drives and mirroring them each day before archiving them off to
> tape.
>
> It all depends on what level of back-up you require. Heh my favourite is
> a company that used the grandfather/father/son system of backups, but
> reused the tapes. So Day 1: GF, Day 2: F, Day 3: S, Day 4: GF etc. I'm
> sure you can all see the problem.
Palindrome?
That's one package that used GFS backup strategies - it can work, of
course, as long as your tape rotation is appropriate to retaining the
full backups.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:42:52 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:40:28 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> It all depends on what level of back-up you require. Heh my favourite is
>> a company that used the grandfather/father/son system of backups, but
>> reused the tapes. So Day 1: GF, Day 2: F, Day 3: S, Day 4: GF etc. I'm
>> sure you can all see the problem.
>
> Palindrome?
I don't recall.
> That's one package that used GFS backup strategies - it can work, of
> course, as long as your tape rotation is appropriate to retaining the
> full backups.
And that of course was the problem, if on day 4 the tape got screwed
they'd have no full backup until they managed another backup. It never
occurred to them if the server failed between those two points they'd have
no full backup available.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> From my own experience, verify your tapes.
We do. On every backup run. And to this day, I have never, ever had a
problem restoring something that the backup software said was OK.
Indeed, if the tape is wearing out, I usually get an error message
before the verify phase even begins. (Not sure how it manages that, but
it often reports a CRC error...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
