ONTAPE verification - was RE: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ?

So what's the best way to verify if we use ONTAPE rather than ONBAR? ONTAPE doesn't have a -v option... Rob ________________________________ From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Kennedy, John Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:26 AM To: Floyd Wellershaus; informix-list@iiug.org Subject: RE: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ? Hello Floyd, We do not verify every onbar backup, just every two weeks. Although we have run onbar -v, during high load on the system during the day with no major performance issues, and from my recollection the last time I checked the verification takes slightly less time than the actual backup itself. Cheers John ________________________________ From: Floyd Wellershaus [mailto:fwellers@yahoo.com] Sent: 27 April 2006 13:22 To: Kennedy, John; informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ? Thanks John. Do you verify each and every onbar backup you make or just spot check them ? Our big instance takes about 4.5 hours to backup, so I am guessing it will take an equal amount of time to verify it. ======================== -<<Floyd Wellershaus>>- Database Administrator Unix Administrator email: fwellers@yahoo.com Home: 703-430-0805 Cell: 703-477-6045 ======================== http://www.one.org/ ----- Original Message ---- From: "Kennedy, John" <john.kennedy@logicacmg.com> To: Floyd Wellershaus <fwellers@yahoo.com>; informix-list@iiug.org Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:01:33 AM Subject: RE: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ? Hello Floyd, we here use onbar -v to verify our backups, I believe this just calls the archecker utility to verify the backups. There is an outstanding issue regarding Archecker failing when the backup is actually successful, this was noted when we ran it on an ontape backup however I am not sure if this same case for the verifications using onbar -v. I am investigating at the moment and will feedback to you with my findings. Cheers John ________________________________ From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Floyd Wellershaus Sent: 27 April 2006 11:59 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ? I am wondering if it is considered best practice by many to use Archecker to verify Onbar backups. I've never used it before. Is it worth the resources it uses on the system ( ie, a tape drive, database and system resources) ? Also, I notice that it does the equivelent of oncheck -cd, ce and cr on the backup tape. That seems to be a quick/alternate way to verify the data on our database. Any thoughts about that ? Thanks for any advice. ======================== -<<Floyd Wellershaus>>- Database Administrator Unix Administrator email: fwellers@yahoo.com Home: 703-430-0805 Cell: 703-477-6045 ======================== http://www.one.org/ This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

archecker -tdvs.... and configure the AC_CONFIG file. Superboer.

The problem with archecker is that it is a third party package and we can't load much in the way of extra stuff unless we write it ourselves with the utilities that are already in place. :( Any other ideas? INFORMIX-OnLine ver 7.23.UC11 HPUX 11.x Rob -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Superboer Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:06 AM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: ONTAPE verification - was RE: anybody using Archecker with Onbar ? archecker -tdvs.... and configure the AC_CONFIG file. Superboer. _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Konikoff, Rob (Contractor) wrote: > The problem with archecker is that it is a third party package and we > can't load much in the way of extra stuff unless we write it ourselves > with the utilities that are already in place. :( > > Any other ideas? > > INFORMIX-OnLine ver 7.23.UC11 > HPUX 11.x > > Rob > 7.23.UC11 is so old, that it isn't even mentioned on the support pages (sounds a bit like "My mother in law is so fat ...") http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/informix/support/plc/ 7.24 went EOS 31st December 2002. I wonder if 7.23.UC11 is Y2K compliant :O

7.24 went EOS 31st December 2002. I wonder if 7.23.UC11 is Y2K compliant :O _______________________________________________ Hahaha well, our applications are built using internal date math that is based on data fields that are all numerical sequence numbers, not actual dates, so we really don't have that kind of problem. We updated some of the data fields and changed a couple of structures to accommodate a full year, but it worked without a problem. Besides, it's EXPENSIVE to upgrade! And HEY! I get paid to keep the customer happy!

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:38:04 -0400, "Konikoff, Rob \\(Contractor\\)" <rob.konikoff@us.army.mil> wrote: >So what's the best way to verify if we use ONTAPE rather than ONBAR? >ONTAPE doesn't have a -v option... > >Rob restore it to a QA box logically configured like your production box . . . . JWC

Hello Rob archecker is not a 3rd party product, it is bundled with later versions. in 7.2X it was sort of internal only... anyways you may contact TS and ask if you can get a copy... long shot.. fingers crossed... hopefully you get away with it.... or as indicated restore on a test box. first zero out the chunks to be used!!! then restore then run all the onchecks you can think of on the restored data. Superboer. Konikoff, Rob (Contractor) schreef: > 7.24 went EOS 31st December 2002. > > I wonder if 7.23.UC11 is Y2K compliant :O > _______________________________________________ > > > Hahaha well, our applications are built using internal date math that > is based on data fields that are all numerical sequence numbers, not > actual dates, so we really don't have that kind of problem. We updated > some of the data fields and changed a couple of structures to > accommodate a full year, but it worked without a problem. > > Besides, it's EXPENSIVE to upgrade! And HEY! I get paid to keep the > customer happy!