Re: archiving question
- From: Camramike@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:50:45 GMT
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:33:40 -0500, leeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lee
Blevins) wrote:
>Archive: To remove from active storage and place in a permanent archive.
>Backup: To protect active storage.
Thanks for the clarification...
>>
>Somebody has it in their mind that you'll increase your active storage
>size and make it easier to retrieve files. This would be accomplished by
>using this juke box as a backup device, not an archive.
We have plenty of server room, 1000G with about 850G free. This is
strictly Archiving. A backup is done nightly to tape in case there is
a problem with the server.
>> 2. The Media Finder X software that was supplied (unregistered
>> shareware) allows you to catalogue the disks, but it seems that after
>> each writing session you have to recatalogue the entire DVD collection,
>> takes forever.
>
>Stupid. Very stupid. Use a different cataloging software and don't write
>bridged discs. That is, don't let the backup/archive write across
>multiple disks. Just number them and note what's on what disk. This is
>what databases are for.
That one of the problems, there is no "backup/archive" software. To
get files onto the DVD-RAM you copy them with the finder. If you
select more than will fit on the disk, you don't find out until the
disk runs out of space and you have to copy that job again.
>> 3. If you search the catalogue and then drag the results to your
>> desktop, it MOVES the files (they are no longer on the DVD)!!! How's
>> that for a permanent archive!
>
>That doesn't sound right. I'd check that manual again. Computers are
>capable of both "move" and "copy." Instead of dragging from their
>software just mount the disc and drag from it.
I know it sounds stupid, but I swear that's the way it works! If the
operator drags the files to the server its no problem. But like I said
before, it really should be pretty fool proof.
>> 4. Mac OSX is terrible at updating and showing actual size of folders
>> and disk space that is available so it is very cumbersome to copy files
>> to the DVD. You have to determine how big each job folder is, then find
>> one of the DVDs with enough space and copy it. If a single job is too
>> big for a DVD, you need to split it up into smaller folders before
>> archiving.
>
>You aren't calculating folder size are you? A spanking would be in
>order if you were.
It seems necessary to know how much you are copying before starting to
copy. Some jobs will occasionally be too large for a single DVD. Most
time many jobs will fit on a DVD. But if you select too much you're
kinda screwed and have to go back and start that batch over, or at
least verify which folders copied completely and which ones didn't.
Very very klutzy.
>> 5. I suspect it will take 2-3 days to copy all of the files to disks,
>> rather than the hour or so that it takes now to organize the files then
>> let retrospect write unattended.
>> 6. They apparently spent 9000 bucks on this stupid system!
>
>Not bad. How much is the total volume of the system? We didn't cover
>that. It's a very important factor in evaluating this system.
200 DVDs.
>It's random access. It's slow. It's huge. Wish I had one.
>
>But it all depends on what it's total volume is. It could be used to put
>all of your archives into "near-line" storage. Wouldn't that be nice?
We calculated that it would not hold a years worth of data if all DVD
were filled to capacity.
Hope this doesn't sound like a giant whiney rant (yeah, too late for
that) but I just hate working for clueless people.
.
- References:
- archiving question
- From: camramike
- Re: archiving question
- From: Lee Blevins
- archiving question
- Prev by Date: Re: Iconography
- Next by Date: Re: Iconography
- Previous by thread: Re: archiving question
- Next by thread: Re: archiving question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
