Backup Strategy Or Am I just Stupid?

[GMan]

OK here goes.
We're pushing out Symantec Backup EXEC to our systems. Each system has
2 physical drives. Secondary has 2 partitions - D and un-named. D
drive will be used for user data. They want C & D backup images to
reside on the un-named slice.

My gripe.....
1st - They are saving C & D in the same job to the same recovery
point.
2nd - When going through the configuration to create the recovery
points, it gives the option for where the recovery points should be
stored. They want it pointed to ...

C:\Windows\system32\config\backups.

When selected this generates a warning message that you are using the
drive to backup as your recovery point. It recommends saving to an
alternate drive. They accept this and march on. When the job is
completed, the images are stored in ...(You'll never guess this one!)

C:\Windows\system32\config\backups.

They're telling us that there's a problem when the jobs run because
the images are supposed to get saved to the un-named slice. I not sure
how it works when it is pointing them to the C drive.

So far so good ...

What happens when C drive dies if all the images reside on C? If it
will work as they anticipate then C can be restored from the un-named
slice. But the current config has all data sitting on C so ....

And what happens when D decides to go on a road trip? All of his
friends on the un-named slice are going along for the ride wether they
want to or not. C drive is still running but all the user data is
toast since it resides on the same physical drive as the backup data.

Thanks, I needed that!

 

[DL]

send them on a disaster management course

 

[Noozer]

OK here goes.
We're pushing out Symantec Backup EXEC to our systems. Each system has
2 physical drives. Secondary has 2 partitions - D and un-named. D
drive will be used for user data. They want C & D backup images to
reside on the un-named slice.

Who's THEY?

....and just how do they expect to save to an "unnamed" partition?

Put two partitions on drive 1, backup drive 1 to drive 2.

 

[GMan]

Who's THEY?

...and just how do they expect to save to an "unnamed" partition?

Put two partitions on drive 1, backup drive 1 to drive 2.

THEY be the directors/CIO/ and other assorted bigshots.

 

[cornedbeef007-groups]

THEY be the directors/CIO/ and other assorted bigshots.

There are MANY opinions on partition layouts and backups.
Here's mine.
You need 2 partitions on the primary drive, one for the system, and
the other for user data.
You then store the backups of both these partitions on the secondary
drive, or preferably on another machine.
If you need to restore the system, doing so leaves your data
untouched.
If the primary drive dies, you replace it with a new one, and restore
from the backup on the secondary drive.
If the secondary drive dies, you replace it, and start your backups
again.
The downside is if both the primary and secondary drives drop dead at
the same time, you lose the lot. To overcome this downside, you need a
copy of your backup stored in another location.
What you do depends on the value of your data if you lose it, and your
budget.

Good Luck.

 

[GMan]

There are MANY opinions on partition layouts and backups.
Here's mine.
You need 2 partitions on the primary drive, one for the system, and
the other for user data.
You then store the backups of both these partitions on the secondary
drive, or preferably on another machine.
If you need to restore the system, doing so leaves your data
untouched.
If the primary drive dies, you replace it with a new one, and restore
from thebackupon the secondary drive.
If the secondary drive dies, you replace it, and start your backups
again.
The downside is if both the primary and secondary drives drop dead at
the same time, you lose the lot. To overcome this downside, you need a
copy of yourbackupstored in another location.
What you do depends on the value of your data if you lose it, and your
budget.

Good Luck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree!! Too bad the policy makers cannot be persuaded. I may be
getting picky but the CIO for IT has a background in business project
management. Has no IT experience. If I have to go to the hospital I
want to know that the chief of surgery is a doctor, not an accountant.
The person I want leading IT has had their share of fried MB's,
toasted power supplies, and irate users breathing down their neck.

 

[cornedbeef007-groups]

I agree!! Too bad the policy makers cannot be persuaded. I may be
getting picky but the CIO for IT has a background in business project
management. Has no IT experience. If I have to go to the hospital I
want to know that the chief of surgery is a doctor, not an accountant.
The person I want leading IT has had their share of fried MB's,
toasted power supplies, and irate users breathing down their neck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you should put YOUOR recommendations in writing, with reasons,
to the CIO.
Point out the risks in using his plan, and then go ahead and implement
his plan.

Then when (not IF) it all comes unglued, you can be safe in the
knowledge that the CIO knew and accepted the risk, even if he, heaven
forbid, didn't understand it.

Good Luck.

 

[M.I.5¾]

I agree!! Too bad the policy makers cannot be persuaded. I may be
getting picky but the CIO for IT has a background in business project
management. Has no IT experience. If I have to go to the hospital I
want to know that the chief of surgery is a doctor, not an accountant.
The person I want leading IT has had their share of fried MB's,
toasted power supplies, and irate users breathing down their neck.

To expand your allusion: you are suggesting that you would want that chief
of surgery to which you refer to have amputated his fair share of wrong
limbs, killed patients under anaesthetic etc. I'm am pretty sure that I
would not want this man!

 

[GMan]

To expand your allusion: you are suggesting that you would want that chief
of surgery to which you refer to have amputated his fair share of wrong
limbs, killed patients under anaesthetic etc. I'm am pretty sure that I
would not want this man!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No knowing for sure if you are being serious or not, I'll assume that
you're making a funny. If not then my comment was meant to convey that
I would really prefer someone with training and experience in the
Information Technology field to run the organizations IT department.
This is not meant to take away from the abilities of the current CIO.