The problem with backing up MacOS X files with the Classic client is
that the new file attributes will be lost. MacOS up to version 9.1 store
resources and attributes for file differently then MacOS X. Many of the
files you backup will not restore correctly if the new method of
resource and attribute settings is not supported.
So, if you have users using dual boot setups, then make sure they run on
separate partitions an only backup the MacOS 9.1 "side". The X side, and
all files included with native applications are not reliably restorable.
MO
On Wednesday, June 6, 2001, at 05:58 AM, Gretchen L. Thiele wrote:
>> At minimum, a command line dsmc & dsmadmc functionality with support
>> for
>> HFS+ and UFS file systems. This way the scheduler could be put in a
>> cron
>> entry for nightly processes. Personally, I don't care much about a gui
>
> I pretty much agree with the above, but I *do* care about gui for
> most of my users.
>
> The problem may or may not be the new dual boot Macs - we already have
> a client for the OS 9.1 side, but need one for the OS X side. Should
> they overlap in the files that they back up? Should they exclude
> files not distinctly associated with each OS version? The future is
> going to be OS X, so most of the development should be focused there.
> However, for the duration of this year, most of my users will be
> in both worlds and expect to be backed up...
>
> If you could back up and restore files from either OS from one 'side'
> (OS X), that would cover it for us. This, of course, introduces a
> lot of other issues, but ones I can deal with. Bottom line is a
> working client for OS X.
>
> I'm still thinking about this and I am waiting to hear back from our
> Mac admins here to see what they would like.
>
>
> Gretchen Thiele
> Princeton University
>
