[Tfug] bacula et ilk

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, johngalt1 <johngalt1 at uswest.net> wrote:

[snips throughout]

> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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

I didn't feel this was important -- I am not trying to
troubleshoot the Windows' Backup problem but, rather,
gain pointers to backup solutions that work in
heterogeneous environments.

But, as f'rinstances, Pinnacle Studio complained that
"required files are missing... please reinstall the
application".

Mathematica asked for my serial number, again.

AutoCAD forgot where the "extra" support files were
located for the symbol libraries I have installed.

Etc.

> location where the necessary missing files were expected

The applications don't tell you those things!  So, for the
example of Pinnacle Studio, it could be a *system* DLL is
missing (or, maybe a file that Pinnacle installed in the
WINNT hierarchy).  Or, it could be some pointer to a file
that happens to have been stored in the registry is missing.
Or....??? (most applications are woefully deficient when
it comes to producing meaningful error output)

> 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.

I haven't tried to chase down what the "complaining" apps
have in common. Note that some work correctly.  Some work
once I reeenter my registration information.  Some (e.g.,
the Pinnacle application) just refuse to work at all.

Note that some apps may choose to store application specific
information locally; others may choose to store it in the
registry.  Since the registry is such a "special case"
(i.e., my "data" files restore properly so I would assume
any "local" data stored by an application also restored
correctly -- the registry being the oddball)
 
> Did you select the System State option when using Windows
> Backup?

Yes.  And I made sure to specify "(unconditionally) overwrite
files on restore".

> 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.

And (considering the original post) these applications are
*available* and *functional* for the various hosts that I
have mentioned?  It's easy to come up with *a* solution for
*a* platform; usually harder to come up with one that
works *across* platforms.
 
> 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.

First, I find many Symantec apps dig too deep into the OS
to work reliably.  Install the wrong service pack and
suddenly the application scfrews things up for the entire
system!  (Nero has a similar prediliction for being too
smart for their own good  :< )

Second, the idea of having to add an application to do
what should be a core OS service just doesn't feel right.
E.g., that's why I use tar on the other machines... "it just
works".

Third, you find that the next OS upgrade makes that
wonderful third party tool suddenly not work correctly.
Something you discover *after* you need it!  :<
 
> What size of backup are you talking about here? Tapes? Who

The W2K machine backup is only about 100G.

> 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)

<grin>  My only (prior) bad experience with a "failed backup"
was the result of resorting to a pair of external, off-line
hard drives to keep copies of my "can not be lost at any cost!"
materials.  I needed to reinstall this data.  I carefully
removed "Backup Copy 1" from the box it was stored in on
the closet shelf.  Installed it in a drive case.  Booted the
system. Mounted the volume... and found it's contents
completely scrambled!

"Crap!  Drive must have coincidentally died just as it was
powering up."

Shutdown the system.  Removed the drive.  Took out the
*second* copy of the backup.  Went through the same
process -- SAME RESULTS!!

Two drives don't coincidentally fail at the same time!

Bottom line:  SCSI driver bug introduced to the OS since
the time I had built the backups.  Said bug scrambles
superblock -- quite reliably!  :<

Since *everything* was on that single spindle, it all
goes away at the same time.  This is also true if the
spindle bearings freeze up.  Or, if you *drop* the 
drive.  Etc.

And, of course, no protection against accidentally
erasing/formatting the medium, etc.  (by contrast,
you can flip the write protect tab on a tape and
protect yourself from many of these operator errors)

Lastly, that drive can only be read on a system that
can support that particular file system.  So, my
NBSD/SPARC drives (and any images on them) are not
readable on my NBSD/i386 machine.  Let alone the
issues of trying to read them on a MS machine.

> 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.

I don;t have any problem reinstalling the OS prior to
performing a backup. I *do* resist having to install something
*else* in order to get back what I already had.

And, trying to apply that same solution to multiple platforms...