At 12:52 PM -0600 24/11/00, Pam Lefkowitz wrote:
>>So Retrospect reports errors that it finds in the network setup that
>>doesn't affect ANYTHING else? If these errors existed then why does
>>nothing else complain?
>
>Yet.
>
>>I copy large files from one machine to another, but that never fails
>
>Yet.
That's taking a rather simplistic approach that my experience so far
does not support. I've had no known network failures of any kind -
except Retrospect. To simply say that I will have one day is dodging
the issue.
>> If it is a SCSI problem, then shouldn't
>>Retrospect report it as such?
>>
>
>I've not found 519's to be SCSI issues. They are network issues. And
>almost always hardware. If you're experiencing 519's on multiple servers
>then I'd take a hard look at the infrastructure in place. Somewhere there
>is a "frayed" cable or a port/switch/router/hub that's either failing or
>getting ready to fail.
Well here's another take on the 519 errors. Can SCSI errors generate
a 519 or not? Anyone know for sure?
>>Backup software should the most reliable software in use on the
>>network, yet Retrospect is the only software that consistently fails
>>to do what it is supposed to.
>
>This *is* the most reliable software in use on your network. And, in
>addition, it is probably the most useful network assessment tool you have
>as well. If Retrospect is telling you that you have a network
>problem...you do (or will) indeed have a network problem. Consider
>looking at it as more than just backup
>software...consider looking at it as a diagnostic tool. Better than any
>other tool out there for finding hardware problems.
No, sorry but that's nonsense. Everything else runs 100% reliably -
except Retrospect. Maybe it is finding little network niggles that
exist, but all the other network software manages to work despite
this. If Retrospect could report the problem, but continue to get the
backup done then that would be OK.
Retrospect is NOT a network diagnostic tool. If it was then it should
at least tell me where the fault lies, not just report some nebulous
'network communication error'.
>It does run correctly and it does run reliably.
How can you say that when I am reporting that it is the ONLY network
product that fails to complete the task for which it is expressly
designed to do? Maybe you have a different understanding of the word
"reliable".
Look, I don't want to bash Dantz here, but these responses show that
some users just blindly follow the dogma that Retrospect is perfect
and the fault lies elsewhere. Well I'm sorry, but if I bought a car
and the wheels kept falling off and the manufacturer insisted it was
not their fault, it was the road surface, yet although the road was a
bit rough, no other cars were losing their wheels, I'd say that the
fault lies with the manufacturer who should to look at how they could
stop the wheels falling off their car even on bumpy roads.
It would also appear that I'm not the only one whose wheels keep falling off...
--
Ken G i l l e t t
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
