> This concept was considered, but is really last on the list - it's a bit > of a mine field. > Running two VM:Backup service machines has potential, though, instead of > running two backups serially on the same machine.
And how...there be dragons, big time. Two VM:Backup runs (even "simultaneous" runs) have a high probability of being different enough to drive auditors berserk. The system isn't the same as it was with the first set, and you can't stand up and give evidence that the two backups contain the same data, particularly if the system is live during the backup runs. Also, anything that uses BLP tape options is pretty much automatically suspect (and your tape librarians are probably going to get hostile as well -- things like that tend to mess with their worldview of having One True Identifier That Is Immutable In the Whole Enterprise).
