elvis@notatla.org.uk (all mail refused) wrote in message news:<slrncljrp1.2el.elvis@notatla.org.uk>...
> Actually I'm a firm believer in paper records for stuff like disk
> layouts and what's on what tape.

I'm a firm believer in writing that data to the backup media in
a manner where it's easily utilized in most any minimal recovery
environment (no operating system installed, just system hardware,
recovery/boot media, and backup media), and on the backup media
where it's reasonably conveniently accessed (e.g. start of
first media volume in a set, or tail end of a set with
sufficiently fast seekable media).

I tend to include data such as disk layout, sizes, relative
fullness, volume management configuration, relevant hardware
details/specifications, etc. I prefer to make the recording and
inclusion of that information as automated as reasonably feasible.
I also like plopping information on the backup media that fully
describes exactly how the backups were made, and in a location
where it's conveniently readable and accessible before need to
restore the backup data proper.

Duplicate paper records and/or information recorded on backup media,
and kept in multiple distinct locations to track offsites and their
rotations is also a very good thing.

Human readable labeling of backup media is a good thing, ...
that, and/or, if the environment is large enough, enough redundancy
in distinct locations of machine readability and the necessary
equipment and such.

So, ... cover the data, and don't forget to cover the appropriate
meta-data, offsites, ... and test at least once in a while, to be
sure the over-all procedures work and there are no gaping or
largely time-consuming holes when time to restore may be important
to quite critical.