>Just a thought, when does it get time to copy to tape, this seems
>good in theory but I guess it could only be efficient if you can run
>multiple backup sessions in parallel. I'm not sure about the problem
>with speed, I think tape drives can keep up with network speeds
>though I can't tell you that for certain.
>
>I do like the idea of the hard drive taking over as a fail over,
>"the backup must go on".
This might work well for clients with small amounts of data, but just
imagine trying to keep more disk space than your clients on the
server.
Didn't we just go through a discussion on file sizes? So if you do a
backup to file, there is a limitation of 2GB(?) of that file. If
they break that barrier, then the rest of the stuff is fairly easy I
would think.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
