From: Adam Quantrill (aquantrill_at_scigen.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jun 30 1999 - 11:31:50 EDT
There's no reason you can't have the same arrangement substituting the word 'disk' for 'tape'.
Given the relative cost per MB of tape and disk storage, and the convenience of backing up and restoring from disk, I'd probably go the same way.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Tape Backup for TP
Author: MIME:Greg Langham <greg_at_psnet.net> at INTERNET
Date: 30/06/99 15:01
#################################################### The following message part was sent with the unknown character set: "WINDOWS-1252"
####################################################
The disk-to-disk backup procedure works OK for keeping a "hot" backup of your system.
However, what if you worked on an application two days ago, then did a disk-ti-disk transfer, then realized that the work you did two days ago was bad and you need to go to a backup prior to the disk-to-disk transfer?
Redundant backups are the way to go for user data. We use daily backups for Monday through Thursday, with separate "Friday" tapes for each week. We also run a separate month-end backup tape. You would be surprised how often we need to go back to a tape two or three weeks back.
I know this is a bit overkill for your Thinkpad, and I agree that disk-to-disk backup works well most of the time and is great for keeping your system alive. However, important files that are volatile should have multiple backups at different revision levels, just to be safe.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Chalk [mailto:rchalk_at_mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:33 PM
To: STeve Andre'; THINKPAD_at_cs.utk.edu Subject: RE: Tape Backup for TP
I suppose in theory you are right, but what are the chances that both hard disks will die at the same time? About the same as the chances that your tape drive will "eat" the tape...?? (Grin)
Richard
At 11:19 PM 6/29/99 -0400, STeve Andre' wrote:
>For ease of use I can say that this is a really nifty approach--until >the clone disk dies at the wrong time. I once inherieted a consulting >client, for which the previous consultant set up a system exactly like >this. It worked well for two years, saving the owners at least once >during a minor disaster but failed when it was needed the most. Given >that there was no farther back copy of the data, they were in deep >trouble.
>
>Regardless of the fact that disks are more reliable today than before, >there is nothing like having *multiple* backups on tape. Knowing that >a full dump which isn't completely good but which has an older copy >for fallback makes me sleep better for several projects I do.
>
>Just a word of caution here about this; I don't mean to rain on your >proceedure Richard, but to make a comment pointing out the drawback >in this.
>
>--STeve Andre'
>andres_at_pilot.msu.edu
>
>At 10:29 PM 6/29/99 -0400, Richard Chalk wrote:
>>My approach is to use a second hard drive, which these days is not much >>more than a good tape drive. I use "Drive Image" in the "direct to disk" >>mode, and simply clone the main drive. This has the advantage of producing
>>a fully functional drive that you can simply plug into the main bay, and it
>>will boot.
>>
>>This means, while I'm travelling, that if I have a drive failure, or bad >>file corruption, I can be up and running again in just a few minutes.
>>
>>Richard
------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Generics Limited Tel: +44 1223 875200
Harston Mill Fax: +44 1223 875201
Harston http://www.generics.co.uk
Cambridge CB2 5NH
United Kingdom
Registered in England No 2081960
------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:08 EST