Actually, I can see a reason for this in the banking industry. Just because a tape is expired doesn't mean there is no data on the tape. There could be a disposal issue that has to be addressed.
-Andrew Jeff Lightner wrote: > At 3 different employers we did change control but I NEVER had to do a > change control for tape management. Change Control is typically aimed > at making sure you don’t take down live Production. > > I did work at one pharmaceutical which required FDA “Validation” which > meant ALL processes and procedures had to be documented. In that case > you don’t have to write a change control unless the document you wrote > requires it. Most documents simply indicated under what conditions the > procedure would be executed (typically for something like this it > would just be a service ticket rather than a change control [we didn’t > call them RFCs]). Unless you’re under some extreme federal regulation > like pharmaceuticals were I wouldn’t think you’d even be required to > document it let alone do an RFC. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of > *Patrick Whelan > *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2005 6:45 AM > *To:* Veritas-Bu (E-mail) > *Subject:* [Veritas-bu] RFC Curiosity - Changing tapes > > |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++| > |Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of this e-mail.| > |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++| > > For those of you who are fortunate enough to have change control, and > therefore request for same, how many of you have to submit a RFC to > take out frozen tapes and replace them with new tapes. And what to do > you put for systems and areas affected? > > Regards, > > */Patrick Whelan/* > Enterprise Systems Support (NetBackup) > LCHClearnet > +44 020 7426 7624 > > > Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve > neither liberty nor safety. > > ~Benjamin Franklin > > … and by that time no one was left to speak up. > > ~Martin Niemöller > > > > |**********************************************************************| > |This email is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents| > |are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s)| > |and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of | > |LCH.Clearnet Limited. If you are not an intended recipient please| > |delete this e-mail and notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]| > > |The contents of this email are subject to contract in all cases, | > |and LCH.Clearnet Limited makes no contractual commitment save where| > |confirmed by hard copy. LCH.Clearnet Limited accepts no liability, | > |including liability for negligence, in respect of any statement in | > |this email.| > > |LCH.Clearnet Limited, Registered Office: Aldgate House, | > |33 Aldgate High Street||, London|| EC3N 1EA. Recognised as a Clearing | > |House under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000. Reg in England > No.25932 | > |Telephone: +44 20 7426 7000 Internet: http://www.lchclearnet.com| > |**********************************************************************| > -- Andrew Stueve Neovera, Inc 571-437-5754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - [email protected] http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
