HP3000-L Archives

October 1999, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Paveza, Gary" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paveza, Gary
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:00:56 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Personally we have just the basics.  After loading from an SLT, we can
restore from our backups because Restore is there.  We restore a BULDJOB
which is a full system buldjob (created weekly) first.  After running that
job to create our account structure, we can then perform a full restore, and
run the second buldjob to set all UDCs.

While I can see the benefits of putting additional files on the SLT, is it
really necessary?  I would think that it would have the potenial to cause
more confusion for someone not familiar with a particular environment.

For the same reason, I find the DIRECTORY option unnecessary in store's.
Why bother when a BULDJOB can contain all that information?  At least here,
our account structure doesn't change very often.  We have system wide UDCs
to prevent the addition of new users, new accounts, and new groups (we have
to because we shadow our system to a secondary system for backups and
account structure needs to be identical).

-------------------------------
Gary L. Paveza, Jr.
Technical Support Specialist
All opinions are mine and not those of my employer


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Donna Garverick [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent:   Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:40 PM
        To:     [log in to unmask]
        Subject:        Re: Creating SLT with additions

        Steve Cole wrote:

        > Contents of the (STRFILE) follows:
        >
@.pub.sys,@[log in to unmask]@.pub.sys;directory;onvs=mpexl_system_volume_set;show

        (steve wasn't the only one that replied to the original question,
but (i
        believe) all the responses were quite similar....)  is this syntax
still
        'correct'?  certainly it is syntactically, but is it logically
correct?  or
        could it be 'more correct' syntactically?  in particular, i'm
concerned that the
        above type of statement would completely by-pass anything in hfs
name-space.  i
        suspect that most of 'us' have hfs files in /SYS/....  personally, i
would give
        some thought to including the telesup account.  hmmm....perhaps the
better
        question is *what* really should be on an slt tape -- with recovery
in
        mind?            - d

        --
        Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
        925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

        >>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<

ATOM RSS1 RSS2