Re: Do not need backups with Veritas Volume Replicator

Yep. As will a tape.

I was however a bit hasty in only considering backups from the standpoint of hardware failure. In the case of operator failure I prefer to use an audit trail strategy ... which once again eliminates the need for tape while guaranteeing the ability to reverse any and all transactions.

Daniel Morgan

Craig Ballingall wrote:

> Wouldn't a replicated server replicate erroneous deletions/updates ????
>
> "damorgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3C926DB0.288B6561_at_exesolutions.com...
> > I tend to agree with them. I'm not sure I see any real purpose served in
> backing
> > up a server that has replication either so long as the other machine is at
> least
> > 1,000 miles away from the primary.
> >
> > Id guess that 25% of the time I've been in an environment where someone
> ran for
> > a backup tape ... restoration failed so I have little faith in them. Which
> of
> > course doesn't stop people from filling warehouses with tape.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
> >
> >
> >
> > BEDick wrote:
> >
> > > I had a discussion with a client the other day, and they said backups
> were
> > > NOT necessary because they were using Veritas Volume Replicator. I'm not
> > > familiar with this Veritas product, so I found it difficult to debate
> their
> > > position. But that statement was hard to swallow.
> > >
> > > The only thing I can think of is that a backup would give them another
> level
> > > of protection against site failure. Can you give me some more points to
> > > make?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Later,
> > > BEDick
> >
Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 17:17:37 CST