2 Sep
2000
2 Sep
'00
2:54 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <richard(a)idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: D'oh! Backup issue solved
Folks with big ISP's/search engines tend to have
between 750 GB and 1.5
TB
of storage, depending on their size. Numerous
corporate enterprises
around
here are near the TB range right now. I heard on the
radio about one
new
internet startup that brought up 775 GB of RAID their
first day.
May be so. I manage 40 clients and 4 servers every day and its not an
issue.
I could care less about the problem of dealing with more than 10-20gb.
Most
people I know of want a good solid very reliable 5-20gb system that
really
does make a restorable backup. In that range there are a lot of
products,
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I find lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Allsion
2 Sep
2 Sep
4:12 a.m.
ajp166 wrote:
[ ... ] of hardware and most work fine. What I find
lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
I think, the adaptec software can do it for you. And any **ix system
with dd ;-)
cheers,
emanuel
7:05 a.m.
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I find
lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Around Point Loma they use a Symantec utility called GHOST to do this. I
ghosted two NT workstations this way to make a template backup. One small
detail, though, is that you have to fix security IDs when you're done, but
the GHoSTWALK utility makes this easy to do.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Everyone is entitled to my opinion. -- James Carpenter ---------------------
8:50 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I think they include a utility called SID? to do that. Also, my
understanding is that the SID is assigned automatically when the machine is
first connected to the network. I ghosted the drives from a newly installed
system that had not been connected to the network and things seemed to work
out just fine.
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I
find lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Around Point Loma they use a Symantec utility called GHOST to do this. I
ghosted two NT workstations this way to make a template backup. One small
detail, though, is that you have to fix security IDs when you're done, but
the GHoSTWALK utility makes this easy to do.
2:58 p.m.
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I find
lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Around Point Loma they use a Symantec utility called GHOST to do this. I
ghosted two NT workstations this way to make a template backup. One small
detail, though, is that you have to fix security IDs when you're done, but
the GHoSTWALK utility makes this easy to do. 
3 Sep
3 Sep
3:52 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu> wrote:
No, the SID (as I recall from my guilty little store
of NT data) is
generated off hardware to prevent someone from simply putting the name of a
trusted host on an NT machine and entering it into the NT domain. If the
SID doesn't match, the machine isn't granted entrance. Therefore, it would
have to be have been assigned *before* it is connected to the network, and
according to our local MCSE, it's totally intrinsic to the machine's
hardware.
The SID may be seeded from the Ethernet MAC address or something, but it
isn't really tied to the machine. I've replaced Ethernet cards on NT
boxes with no problems.
But the SID is supposed to be a "secret" shared between the client and
the server. If someone else gets hold of the SID, they can masquerade
as the client and have whatever security privs that client had.
2 Sep
2 Sep
8:47 a.m.
ajp166 wrote:
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I find lacking is the ability
to IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Allsion
I've used a product called Ghost that will 1) make and save disk images, 2)
allow those images to be written to a disk with different partition sizes,
etc. than the original, and 3) be used over a network. The only downside
I've seen (unless they have changed their policy in the last year or so) is
that it is sold on a 100 user license that cost about $750 or so. I managed
to buy a 50 user license at half the cost after I explained that we were
doing a one shot transfer to set up some machines. A good product!
12:07 p.m.
please see embedded comments below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: ajp166 <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: D'oh! Backup issue solved
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <richard(a)idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: D'oh! Backup issue solved
Yes, that would be a nice feature, but I'd be satisfied for starters with
ANY Win9x-based utility that actually would provide a no-nonsense backup
procedure, one that would recognize that it formatted the tape, one that
would follow its own schedule and would recognize the same tape each time it
was in the drive. I'd like it to start within 1 minute of when it's invoked
when running on a 150 MHz machine, and that wouldn't ask me more than once
if REALLY want to do what I just typed. I'd like it to go ahead and back up
the files it can back up and skip the ones it can't, without human
intervention, and NEVER create new files that subsequently require it be
manually instructed, file by file, not to back up the files the program
itself created in order to perform the backup, all of which are, of course.
open. When I'm using a 20-tape library, I'd prefer it NOT ask for
permission to use the next tape, and, having gotten that perimssion, I'd
prefer it not ask again before overwriting the tape. I'd prefer it be able
to read the backup it wrote yesterday, and I'd be happy if it could
recognize the tape it just formatted.
If you know of such a device that works with 4 or 8mm SCSI devices, 100
percent of the time, preferably unattended, and will actually utilize the
bandwidth of the tape device (80MB/sec, in bursts, 90 MB/min,
continuous/aggregate) please share the info with us. The NT stuff is the
only OS-resident software I've encountered that actually works. The backup
that comes with Win9x works with the picotapes that work on the floppy
ports, but they can't handle an adult's device.
What really PISSES ME OFF about all this software, again, with the exception
of the NT stuff, is that it doesn't know about SCSI-1 devices, and doesn't
work one bit better on high-speed large-capacity disk drives than on tapes.
If there were even one program that really would work, producing unattended
backups of the whole system over the LAN every day, assuming there's enough
bandwidth on its 100Mb channel, I'd use it. I've bought a half dozen
different vendors' offerings, and half of them don't even run, let alone
perform backups.
Folks with big ISP's/search engines tend to
have between 750 GB and 1.5
TB
of storage, depending on their size. Numerous
corporate enterprises
around
here are near the TB range right now. I heard on
the radio about one
new
internet startup that brought up 775 GB of RAID
their first day.
May be so. I manage 40 clients and 4 servers every day and its not an
issue.
I could care less about the problem of dealing with more than 10-20gb.
Most
people I know of want a good solid very reliable 5-20gb system that
really
does make a restorable backup. In that range there are a lot of
products,
loads of hardware and most work fine. What I find lacking is the ability
to
IMAGE copy the disks(for NT4) replace the disk and write it back. I'm
used
to doing this with VMS to clone a disk and it's a life saver.
Allsion
4:04 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
Yes, that would be a nice feature, but I'd be satisfied for starters with
ANY Win9x-based utility that actually would provide a no-nonsense backup
procedure, one that would recognize that it formatted the tape, one that
would follow its own schedule and would recognize the same tape each time it
was in the drive. I'd like it to start within 1 minute of when it's invoked
when running on a 150 MHz machine, and that wouldn't ask me more than once
if REALLY want to do what I just typed. I'd like it to go ahead and back up
the files it can back up and skip the ones it can't, without human
intervention, and NEVER create new files that subsequently require it be
manually instructed, file by file, not to back up the files the program
itself created in order to perform the backup, all of which are, of course.
open. When I'm using a 20-tape library, I'd prefer it NOT ask for
permission to use the next tape, and, having gotten that perimssion, I'd
prefer it not ask again before overwriting the tape. I'd prefer it be able
to read the backup it wrote yesterday, and I'd be happy if it could
recognize the tape it just formatted.
If you can, try to get the Cygnus GNU package for Windows, which includes
tar (stands for Tape ARchive). A friend of mine had to back up something
like 40 or 50g worth of data and the program he was using on NT would stop
at the first file it couldn't read and require human intervention (and even
then, it refused to continue). After several attempts at a workaround, we
gave up, installed tar and while it couldn't communicate with the tape
drive, we did manage to backup the data onto another drive (in our case, we
had one local) and tar basically skipped the files it couldn't read (which
is what we really needed).
If there were even one program that really would work,
producing unattended
backups of the whole system over the LAN every day, assuming there's enough
bandwidth on its 100Mb channel, I'd use it. I've bought a half dozen
different vendors' offerings, and half of them don't even run, let alone
perform backups.
Install one of the free Unix systems (Linux, *BSD) on an older box, slap
Samba on it, and use the Unix backup systems. Might actually work and it'll
definitely be cheaper.
-spc (Of course, run the fvwm95 window manager under X and many won't
notice it's not NT ... 8-)
3 Sep
3 Sep
4:54 a.m.
There's one gotcha with the SAMBA (SMB) approach to this problem and that's
in connection with the DOS backups I also have to do. My serious work, PCB
layout, schematic capture, digital simulation, etc, is done largely in a
10-year-old DOS-based package. Reasons aside, what this means is that I
still have to consider memory requirements for those applications. The SMB
driver package(s) I've looked at have too large a memory requirement to fit,
together with rather voluminous SCSI driver requirements imposed by my need
for interchangeable media used together with the software I need. This
means that I either use SAMBA or I get the work done, and not both.
Of course, I could compromise, in that I could run the software under WIN9x,
but that limits the display resolution I can use, since Win9x forces me to
use an 800x600 resolution. I really prefer to be able to see the nearly 1:1
representation of a B-size (11x17") drawing on the CRT and still be able to
read the lettering.
Moreover, the Windows drivers for my HP 9585B plotter don't work properly,
while the ones internal to the drafting package have always worked just
fine. I have several packages under DOS that work properly, and not one
under Windows, since the authors of the drivers apparently thought the
$13,000 "E" size plotters work just like the $175 "A" size ones, which
is
not the case.
Part of the backup problem is because of the long file names, since the
DOS-based package that backs up and restores with complete reliability
doesn't like long file names, and the software that understands the long
file names doesn't understand backup.
Yes, the LINUX is an option, but I'll not use it until there's
synchronization between the documentation and the software in current usage.
That seems millenia away, however.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: D'oh! Backup issue solved
includes
it'll
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once
stated:
>
> Yes, that would be a nice feature, but I'd be satisfied for starters
with
> ANY Win9x-based utility that actually would
provide a no-nonsense backup
> procedure, one that would recognize that it formatted the tape, one that
> would follow its own schedule and would recognize the same tape each
time it
> was in the drive. I'd like it to start
within 1 minute of when it's
invoked
> when running on a 150 MHz machine, and that
wouldn't ask me more than
once
> if REALLY want to do what I just typed. I'd
like it to go ahead and
back up
> the files it can back up and skip the ones it
can't, without human
> intervention, and NEVER create new files that subsequently require it be
> manually instructed, file by file, not to back up the files the program
> itself created in order to perform the backup, all of which are, of
course.
> open. When I'm using a 20-tape library,
I'd prefer it NOT ask for
> permission to use the next tape, and, having gotten that perimssion, I'd
> prefer it not ask again before overwriting the tape. I'd prefer it be
able
to read the
backup it wrote yesterday, and I'd be happy if it could
recognize the tape it just formatted.
If you can, try to get the Cygnus GNU package for Windows, which tar (stands for Tape ARchive). A friend of mine had
to back up something
like 40 or 50g worth of data and the program he was using on NT would stop
at the first file it couldn't read and require human intervention (and
even
then, it refused to continue). After several attempts
at a workaround, we
gave up, installed tar and while it couldn't communicate with the tape
drive, we did manage to backup the data onto another drive (in our case,
we
had one local) and tar basically skipped the files it
couldn't read (which
is what we really needed).
> If there were even one program that really would work, producing
unattended
> backups of the whole system over the LAN every
day, assuming there's
enough
bandwidth on
its 100Mb channel, I'd use it. I've bought a half dozen
different vendors' offerings, and half of them don't even run, let alone
perform backups.
Install one of the free Unix systems (Linux, *BSD) on an older box, slap
Samba on it, and use the Unix backup systems. Might actually work and definitely be cheaper.
-spc (Of course, run the fvwm95 window manager under X and many won't
notice it's not NT ... 8-)
8876
days inactive
8877
days old
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
emu＠ecubics.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
richard＠idcomm.com -
spc＠armigeron.com -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu