[Tfug] bacula et ilk

[Bexley Hall]

Hi,

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Eric M. Gearhart <eric at nixwizard.net> wrote:

> >Problem seems to be that either some things did not get
> >backed up *or* that some things did not get restored. 
> >The fact that some programs required
> "re-authorization" 
> >had me suspecting the registry (or parts thereof) were 
> >not as they were originally. But, the fact that other 
> >programs did NOT suffer from this problem leaves that 
> >an unresolved issue (it is possible that some programs 
> >brand the executable while others do it via a registry 
> >entry, etc. <shrug>) 
> 
> I believe NTbackup only does the bare minimum - it will
> backup the system state (only parts of the registry) and

Ah! That could explain the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ problem.
Though that seems pretty stupid (i.e., what would the rationale
for this be?  That's like only backing up part of the disk...)

> files only, not a "complete system image" as you
> describe. That would explain why some of the programs you
> restore seem to not know what's going on - from their
> perspective, parts of the registry they expect to be there
> are not there. 

<frown>  I guess if I *really* want to know what's going
on, I could "fix" some of the complaining programs and then
diff the "bad" registry contents against the "good" registry.

(sigh)  Mind-boggling that an OS would NOT have a means of 
restoring a copy of itself!

Regardless, any pointers to how good/bad bacula (et al.)
handles the heterogeneuos environment?  Or, is it just
not possible to address the differences between OS's
in a consistent manner?

--don