Gabe said:
>That said, I haven't seen any reason to switch from an existing, documented, and internally-understood >HP-UX systems recovery that relies on the (HP) vendor-supplied sys_recover bits, but >BMR's definitely a win for OSes with less mature ways to do this (Windows, Linux) and >probably for places where you aren't already doing something that works. HP-UX system recovery, AIX mksysb, & Solaris Flasharchive are all well-documented systems that work very well for recovering the OS to its current state. (Ahem, all covered very nicely in my book, BTW. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102461/backupcentral0d ) The advantage to BMR is not having to do a separate backup for that purpose, and being much more automated. My experience has been that, even though those methods work very well, the fact that you have to do a separate backup for them to work makes them usually out of date very quickly. With BMR, your system recovery info gets updated every time you do a backup. That's as good as it's going to get. --- W. Curtis Preston Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
_______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
