![]() If the index consists of a b+-tree/b*-tree interleaved with the data (with the root of the index the last record in the archive), a single backward pass across the tape (including rapid seeks to skip irrelevant data) is sufficient to efficiently restore everything. > but would also require scanning the tape to reconstruct the catalog. I can only imagine someone inexperienced wrote the code, nobody ever did code review, and then the company only ever tested reading tapes from the same computer that wrote them, because it never occured to them to do otherwise? A tape backup solution that doesn't allow the tape to be read by any other PC? That's madness.Ĭompanies do shitty things and programmers write bad code, but this one really takes the prize. This is because the PC which writes the tape stores a catalog of tape information such as tape file listing locally, which the ARCserve is supposed to be able to restore without the catalog because it's something which only the PC which wrote the backup has, defeating the purpose of a backup. ![]() ![]() > This issue doesn't affect tapes written with the ADR-50 drive, but all the tapes I have tested written with the OnStream SC-50 do NOT restore from tape unless the PC which wrote the tape is the PC which restores the tape. Wow, this part makes my blood boil, emphasis mine: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |