On 7/15/02 18:48, "Thomas Schierle" wrote:
> The only problem is, there isn't a compare possible ... no problem
> with the backup itself, first hand.
I think I missed a piece of the thread, Thomas. Why do you say there isn't a
compare possible with Retrospect?
> I might have missed the answer ... question is, does E'rage in fact
> withhold from flashing to disk while one of its databases is being backed up
> by Retrospect. And, how about the set of E'rage databases, which seem to be
> relational (Database <-> Messages). None of those questions have ever been
> answered, and there is hardly any information available to the public
> about E'rages methods of database access.
>
> Once verified hardware and system is in good shape, apps behave, there
> is hardly a need for a compare at a regular basis. And, in case of five
> or seven independent backup sets, a single failing backup is no problem,
> either.
What you don't understand, Thomas, is that the compare feature in Retrospect
is definitely necessary if you want to secure the integrity of your data.
What Retro does in a compare is precisely what it does in a restore...except
that it doesn't restore. Therefore, it's checking your ability to restore
good data. Whether or not your hardware works is a completely different
animal.
> Not that I'm advocating against Retro in any way, but I cannot
> understand your enthusiasm as there are far better solutions available,
> open data handlers yadda yadda -- unfortunately not suited to Mac-centric
> small biz, and NT based anyway.
I have worked with many backup solutions. Trust me when I tell you that
there is nothing as good as Retrospect. Single pass restores, verification,
compatibility with most devices without needing extra drivers, true
incremental backups, automatic recognition of portables...I could go on and
on but that's not for this list. There is a Retrospect list that you can
join from the Dantz site if you're interested.
A quote from Dantz (from their backup forum)
"A compare error appears if a backup set's copied file does not match
the file from which it was copied. Retrospect will try to copy the file
again during the next backup session or similar operation. This doesn't
necessarily mean that the file wasn't backed up.
If you know the file was in use at the time the copying was done, a
compare error is usually nothing to worry about. It simply means the
file changed between backup and verification.
If it's a different error you're getting, look in the knowledgebase for
the error code or text:
<http://www.dantz.com/knowledgebase>"
> Well, an Oracle backup related list obviously won't help that much --
> any pointer to an E'rage backup related list is welcome ;-)
You can post your Retrospect-related questions at the backup forum on Dantz'
site: <http://www.dantz.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=> or join their
listserve (which is quite good). Both have participation from the staff at
Dantz.
Pam
--
Pam Lefkowitz, Owner Core Computing Technologies, Inc.
voice:847/675-3513 fax: 847/675-3564
Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Premiere Member, Apple Consultants Network
Apple Product Professional
Dantz Development Solutions Provider
--
To unsubscribe:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/>
old-archive:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
