[Tfug] bacula et ilk

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Jimbo!  :>

Long sea, no thyme!

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Jim G <learnix at cox.net> wrote:

> Bexley Hall wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
>
> Hi again -
> 
> Inadvertent send... Were you using Windows Backup and
> creating a .bkf file?

Yes, using Windows Fu^H^HBackup but I was writing to *tape*
(I was under the impression that BKF files were "backups
that are stored on *disk*).

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>)

The fact that some programs complained of "missing files"
leads me to suspect it might be something else entirely.

(sigh)

As I said, having to reinstall the applications is a
nuisance -- but, at least I didn't lose any "original
work" in the process (but for a butt-load of *time*
lost!).

Regards to your wife.  Bang on the door next time you're
in the neighborhood!  (Or, is it too hot to run?  :> )

--don