Yes

Post #47,818 by Andrew Grygus 8/2/02 2:19:33 AM Reply	Yes An unverified backup is not a backup. I have seen cases (using tar and cpio) where users changed tapes every night and did a check every morning to confirm the backup ran. When the hard disk failed, the tapes were found totally unreadable (even by a recovery house) because the tape velocity of the drive was unsteady. We have used bru quite successfully. and it's not expensive if you don't mind a little "license bending" by using the "personal" version for business use. I've been involved with sites using Lone Tar, but having to call for a new license code at 2:30 am so you can restore to a new drive is a bit of a drag, even if you can find the paperwork. In cases of extreme cheapness I have used tar -c followed by then a tar -t with any error messages written off to a text file checked by the user in the morning. At least that confirms the tape is readable. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #47,830 by deSitter 8/2/02 9:47:00 AM Reply	Oh How True I've seen the same even for corporate systems with a lot of money invested in tape equipment and rigorous schedules. I always tried to insist on fire drills in addition to the standard verification. -drl
Post #47,833 by slugbug 8/2/02 10:24:31 AM Reply	Definitely... ....that's what I was looking for. Thanks, Andrew! It's not a matter of money here. These have to be verified backups. I'll check out bru and Lone Tar.
Post #47,870 by pwhysall 8/2/02 2:50:02 PM Reply	Preach it. I've actually had to explain to people why we verify backups. Go figure. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #47,872 by kmself 8/2/02 3:27:05 PM 8/2/02 7:05:57 PM Reply	tar, but verify My backups script runs a tar, then verifies each backup. Adds time to the job, but certainly seems worth it in measure. See my [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/backups.html\|backup FAQ] for more rationale and the script itself. Other tools -- amanda gets positive press. Edit: who could turn down an opportunity to misquote like that? (Subject) -- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand? [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever. Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead. [link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/...a_alert.html]] Edited by kmself Aug. 2, 2002, 03:30:45 PM EDT Edited by kmself Aug. 2, 2002, 07:05:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #47,877 by slugbug 8/2/02 4:24:31 PM Reply	Hey, thanks....that helps! Bookmarked the FAQs
Post #48,019 by static 8/4/02 8:03:17 AM Reply	Ah... yes, of course. I thought you had a thing against tar itself, but no, it was the "backup without verify" nature of the beast. I mean, ArcServe, IIRC, doesn't verify by default. Not that I would wish ArcServer on anyone, BTW. I fully agree that all tape backups should be verified according to the level of risk of associated backup failure. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #48,388 by boxley 8/6/02 12:29:32 PM Reply	what he said bru ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields

Welcome to IWETHEY!