Re: onbar

Christopher Stefanick wrote: > > I have 2 instances I need to back up through onbar, and I'm wondering how > many tape drives I need. They are both very small, about 1GB a piece, and > should easily fit on the 4 GB dat drive I have. Of course I'm going to want > the logs backed up too. I'm using onbar so that the whole thing is > automated. How many tape drives do I need? Is onbar smart enough to be > able to put system backups and logs on the same tape? If so, I could easily > get by with 2 tape drives and possibly one. If not, I'll need at least 4 to > avoid having to swap tapes daily. At that point, a juke box might be the > way to go. Any suggestions? It's not OnBar that manages the IO, but the storage manager you select to use with OnBar. Most do allow storage of multiple backups on a single tape, AFAIK, including file system backups. As to the automation, that depends on what you are trying to do. A storage manager will help you get everything on one tape, but if that tape breaks, then you lose everything. For the cost of a second tape drive, you might like the extra security of your logs on a different tape to your archive. :-) Alternatively, a stacker with a single tape drive can also help perform multiple backups onto different tapes in a single drive. I have one system that performs two level 0 archives (from different machines) and a UNIX dump onto three separate tapes using a single drive with stacker, OnTape and a clever bit of shell scripting. ;-) Cheers, -- Mark. +----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Mark D. Stock mailto:mdstock@mydas.freeserve.co.uk |//////// /| | http://www.informix.com http://www.informixhandbook.com |///// / //| | http://www.iiug.org +-----------------------------------+//// / ///| | |This email will self-destruct in |/// / ////| | |10 sec. If you received this email |// / /////| | |in error, sorry about the mess. |/ ////////| +----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+