Hi,
Whilst I have read a lot of posts on DBCC CHECKDB, I have yet to answer the following. It seems to me, that if using a Maintenance plan (SQL 2008 R2), the tasks are linked and if one "fails" the next task doesn't start. Which I think could be an option in environments that have poor monitoring of maintenance plans (i.e. outside our control). What I am thinking is a maintenance plan that does.
1. Full database backup
2. CheckDB
3. Cleanup task for removal of old backups.
....other stuff ...
I think that this would mean that the removal of old backups would not proceed if the checkdb returned errors? (I haven't got a corrupt database to test this.) Whilst backups will accumulate, my understanding is that the overwhelming consensus is to restore from backup when there are checkdb errors. So this approach prevents the backups that you probably need from being removed. Obviously the issue can only be ignored until you run out of disk, then you can ignore it no longer.
If anyone can confirm whether or not a CheckDB with errors would prevent the next task from occuring, thanks. Does this sounds reasonable or ... insane perhaps???