Re: [OT] Backup solutions - my preferences
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:33:12PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> fun stuff... :-)
Oh, yeah!
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > Haven't used amanda, have you? Just set yourself up with a
> > decent-sized holding disk and it's not a problem. (Your backups will
>
> yes... if one has the "holding disk space".. you have backups
> already ... no tape needed ??
Well, yeah, kinda... It is just a holding area, after all. Your
backups are not intended to remain there any longer than it takes to
transfer them to tape.
> - at the time i played w/ amanda... amanda required this
> holding area and the comp didnt have $$$ for mroe disks
But it sounds like you're buying the disk now anyhow, so...
> > holding disk. Just be sure the holding disk is a separate physical
> > device to minimize the chance of losing it if the system's primary
> > drive fails.
>
> backups should always be done on a different server
> and preferably on a different 110v circuit
Agreed, if you intend to use the holding disk as a primary repository
for your backups. Its intended purpose is to allow backups to be run
faster than the actual backup device is capable of writing data to
tape, but it also works well as failover in case of problems with the
tape drive, tapes not getting changed, etc. Within the bounds of the
intended purpose, putting it in a different server is likely to be
counterproductive since access speed would be reduced.
> > I presume that's a home system, right? I can't think of any sort of
> > professional setup where you would have that much data to back up and
> > not have the money for a tape changer.
> i do not do backup stuff for workstations/homes... need "real $$$"
> for "real backups" ... for "supposedly real work done" :-)
Yup. Basically my point: If you have a TB of real data to back up,
I can't imagine that it wouldn't be worth enough to warrant either
buying a robot or hiring a monkey to swap tapes as needed.
> > > - i want the backup to be live within a few minutes
> > > of the main server going down for whatever reason
> >
> > Sounds like you want a redundant server more than a backup solution.
> no ... if they want it live... its just change the ip# form backup
> to real and you're live and online...
If you've got a live backup that can be brought online with just an
IP address change, I'd call that a redundant server...
> which implies they must have
> the $$$ and disk space for these backups or cluster or ?? really
> do lose few grand of real $$$ if the server goes down for 5 minutes
> - so they better plan "everything" for "all contingencies"
Quite true.
> > > - i assume "yesterdays or last weeks" tape/disk/backups is BAD
> > > and can still receover everything from day before or tonights
> > > backup ...
> >
> > "BAD" in what way? Obsolete? That's why you do nightly
> > incrementals. Or do you expect the media to decay within 48 hours?
>
> backups go back for dumb reasons
The reasons you give would all spoil a backup from 5 minutes ago just
as readily as one from yesterday or last week. What I was wondering
about was why you "assume 'yesterdays or last weeks' tape/disk/
backups is BAD".
> - gotta keep people out of the loop to avoid backup problems
Yup.
> > > - i can lose 2 FULL backups and still recover everything
> >
> > Cool. So can I - I run a one-week backup cycle and keep three weeks'
> > worth of tapes.
>
> for 7 days.... you will not have proper backup if the last
> full backup is faulty .... ??
In theory, yeah, that's possible. In practice, going back to a two-
or three-week old full and then applying all the daily incrementals
will be equivalent (aside from taking more time to perform) in almost
all cases. Also keep in mind that amanda spreads fulls out over the
dump cycle rather than doing them all at once, so a single tape
failure can't take out all of my most recent fulls. (The down side,
of course, is that it will take out at least one of them.)
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
- Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)
Reply to: