[Tfug] bacula et ilk

Wed Jun 25 21:09:41 MST 2008

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bexley Hall" <bexley401>
To: <tfug at tfug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:08 PM
Subject: [Tfug] bacula et ilk

> Hi,
>
> My W2K machine recently suffered a series of hardware
> crashes.  After each, I dutifully restored my  most
> recent backup and would limp along until the next
> crash.
>
> [I've since traced the problem to a bad memory device
> *and* a marginal disk drive.  :<  ]
>
> Anyway, in those few times when the machine was "up"
> enough for me to do some useful work, I noticed that
> my "restore" seemed incomplete (or, perhaps the
> original *backup* was to blame?).
>
> E.g., I would have to "re-register" (authorize) programs
> that *had* been registered previously.  Certain programs
> would complain that there were "necessary files missing",
> etc.
>
> At the time, I was more focused on trying to figure out
> why the machine was repeatedly crashing so I didn't spend
> much time trying to resolve these issues (all of my "data"
> was preserved/restored correctly so these other issues are
> just "inconveniences" -- though damn costly ones!)
>
> Of course, now is the time to resolve those issues.  :-/
>
> I had used Windows' "Backup" utility to do the backup and
> restore -- since it seems ludicrous to have to install an
> *application* (i.e., some "backup" utility) just to
> restore a system!  Annoying enough to have to reinstall
> the OS to do this...  :<
>
> I've since looked through all the options in the backup
> *and* restore aspects of that tool and have just concluded
> that it must have some fundamental flaw -- it doesn't
> restore an exact image of your system regardless of how
> you tickle it!
>
> My Solaris and NBSD boxes I have been doing backups just
> using simple tarballs.  Portable, no overhead to set it
> up,
> etc.  But, since the W2K box appears to need some other
> "solution", I figure I should look into things like bacula
> in the hope that it *really* can cope with a heterogenous
> environment (as opposed to just *claiming* it can!)
>
> Any advice on this from folks who have actually *lived*
> with such an environment?  (I can read the propaganda just
> as easily as the next guy... I'd like to know what The
> Real Story is...)
>
> Any *other* suggestions?
>
> BTW, I restore exclusively to tape.

Sir, You talk all about it, but you don't say what it is.
Specifically, I refer to the following:

> E.g., I would have to "re-register" (authorize) programs
> that *had* been registered previously.  Certain programs
> would complain that there were "necessary files missing",
> etc.

Readers might be able to assist more if we knew the identity
of the applications that are having problems. Also, the
location where the necessary missing files were expected
would be helpful. If this info is proprietary, Google or the
SW mfgr website should be able to provide a clue as to how
they copy protect, eh, I mean verify authorized SW.

Did you select the System State option when using Windows
Backup?
http://img.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/technet/images/prodtechnol/windows2000pro/support/whatto01.gif

> I had used Windows' "Backup" utility to do the backup and
> restore -- since it seems ludicrous to have to install an
> *application* (i.e., some "backup" utility) just to
> restore a system!  Annoying enough to have to reinstall
> the OS to do this...  :<

This is why drive imaging is advantageous over backup and
restore software for disaster recovery. There are apps which
have their own boot method so you don't have to reinstall
the OS and THEN restore from backup. However, you generally
pay for that.

As for me, on Windows, I use Ghost and DriveImage XML. XML
is free, but not for old OS like 2000. I got Ghost for $20
or less after rebate. This was one of the last versions that
came bundled with a pre-Norton era Ghost that works with the
legacy OSes. :-) Symantec is good about actually sending
rebates in my experience. However, don't take that as an
endorsement of Symantec, as I believe their products often
suck.

What size of backup are you talking about here? Tapes? Who
uses tapes since big hard drives became cheap? I have been
burned by tapes far too often. I put my backups on two
separate hard drives. (networked or external)

I had not heard of Bacula prior to your post. It looks
interesting, but suffers from being lame for Windows systems
and not comprehensive for disaster recovery. NT and 2K and
prior Win OSes had issues backing up open files with the OS
running, bacula included. Anyone remember share.exe? Until
XP those OSes were not much better...This has since been
addressed in XP with the shadow copy service. Anyway, back
to W2K; that's why you really need a backup software that
has its own driver/method to copy open files, or an imaging
program that boots with its own OS to avoid the open file
issue. There is something on the bacula site about using
Bart PE for disaster recovery, but it looks klugey.

> Thx,
> --don
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1517 - Release
Date: 6/24/2008 8:41 PM