Tape wear should not be much of an issue, if you eliminate shoe-shining. Modern tapes (LTOx, and later, I think) are rated for enormous numbers of read/write cycles.
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 18:42, Greg Wright <greg.wri...@wineselectors.com.au> wrote: > As per Bens comments, this method doesn’t address wear. With tapes as > expensive as they are, I at the time I revisited this was looking to reduce > tape spend but maximise recoverability windows. Im going to put the feelers > out for the spreadsheet a friend came up with that was the closest thing we > could get. It was just a bit too complicated. But I would love to see some > conversation from it if the outcome was tracking down the original backup > solution implemented. > > FWIW - I think a beancounter created the tape schedule I saw... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 26 March 2010 4:18 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: NTbackup Methods > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:57, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Greg Wright >> <greg.wri...@wineselectors.com.au> wrote: >>> Anyone seen anything like that they can explain better than I have? >>> Anyone up for the maths challenge to come up with it again?!?! >> >> Sounds vaguely like Towers of Hanoi, but that doesn't address wear. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup_rotation_scheme#Towers_of_Hanoi >> >> -- Ben >> > > Dang - beat me to it. > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
