John Burke <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> I agree that two (or more, we use five) tape drives are better than one;
> however, rather than a sequential backup (still takes as long) or a
parallel
> backup (too complex when a restore is required) why not two separate,
> independent, backup jobs?
>
> We actually do five simultaneous backups to five tape drives. The obvious
> advantage this has over a sequential backup is the time factor. The
obvious
> advantage over a parallel backup is ease of restore. Perhaps less obvious,
> since the backups are independent, if one fails for any reason, we still
> have a good backup of 4/5's of our system
>
> The downside to this scheme is you have to manually determine how to split
> your system and periodically monitor how much is backed up by each
process;
> however, it has served us well for many years and once set up requires
only
> minimal attention.

Exactly. My assumption is that this is a single tape backup that was
spilling over onto a second tape. The *easiest* thing to do (besides just
manually changing tapes) without introducing other complexities would be a
sequential backup. Anything else would require deeper analysis and an
overhaul of the backup procedure.

Doug.

Doug Werth                             Beechglen Development Inc.
[log in to unmask]                               Cincinnati, Ohio