BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question - Veritas Backup Exec

This is a discussion on BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question - Veritas Backup Exec ; Here's an important question. Suppose I have 2 hard drives, each with 2 partitions. If I backup the second (slave) hard drive with partitions D and F as one backup file, what happens if and when I need to restore ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

  1. BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    Here's an important question. Suppose I have 2 hard drives, each with 2
    partitions. If I backup the second (slave) hard drive with partitions D and
    F as one backup file, what happens if and when I need to restore via
    disaster recovery? If I have one partition on a tape there is no problem.
    But if two partitions were backed up together and the drive fails, when I
    restore do both partitions come back as before, or only one of them?

    I keep my C partition as a separate backup, as I do E partition, so the
    emergency recovery of C drive only recovers C drive. I am trying to
    determine if each partition should always be a separate backup tape.

    Thoughts??

    alan



  2. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    From my experience using Em. Rest. (4.2) , it's very simple minded. It backs up
    the contents of all the fat16/32 partitions it can see (i.e. if you've got c: d:
    e: & f:, it backs up all of them to one save set). When you boot the floppies,
    it's a little more flexible in that you can actually restore any "complete" save
    set, but if it's an emergency restore, then you'll have to restore all of
    whatever's in that save set. (i.e. c: d: e: & f regardless of physical disk ,
    etc..) -- The only way you might manipulate the restore would be by
    reconfiguring the partitions, but if you leave one out, it won't work. I've done
    two restores this way just to test how it works and it works fine considering
    that you usually would want to restore pretty well everything.

    I just realized I probably didn't even answer your question -- Ok -- If you
    have a backup set of D: and F: from physical drive 2, you should be able to
    restore that full backup set again to partitions D: & F: whereever they happen
    to be at restore time.
    hth
    Mick


    armmover wrote:

    > Here's an important question. Suppose I have 2 hard drives, each with 2
    > partitions. If I backup the second (slave) hard drive with partitions D and
    > F as one backup file, what happens if and when I need to restore via
    > disaster recovery? If I have one partition on a tape there is no problem.
    > But if two partitions were backed up together and the drive fails, when I
    > restore do both partitions come back as before, or only one of them?
    >
    > I keep my C partition as a separate backup, as I do E partition, so the
    > emergency recovery of C drive only recovers C drive. I am trying to
    > determine if each partition should always be a separate backup tape.
    >
    > Thoughts??
    >
    > alan



  3. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    Mickey


    Thanks for the comment. If I understand you correctly, if I use emergency
    restore, to restore partitions D &F, then both partitions are restored as
    before; the D files to the D partition, and the F files to the F partition.

    So is there value in keeping each partition as a separate backup file,
    rather than D&F together?

    alan


    Mickey Stein wrote in message
    news:38ED09D5.9555B02E@cts.com...
    > From my experience using Em. Rest. (4.2) , it's very simple minded. It

    backs up
    > the contents of all the fat16/32 partitions it can see (i.e. if you've got

    c: d:
    > e: & f:, it backs up all of them to one save set). When you boot the

    floppies,
    > it's a little more flexible in that you can actually restore any

    "complete" save
    > set, but if it's an emergency restore, then you'll have to restore all of
    > whatever's in that save set. (i.e. c: d: e: & f regardless of physical

    disk ,
    > etc..) -- The only way you might manipulate the restore would be by
    > reconfiguring the partitions, but if you leave one out, it won't work.

    I've done
    > two restores this way just to test how it works and it works fine

    considering
    > that you usually would want to restore pretty well everything.
    >
    > I just realized I probably didn't even answer your question -- Ok -- If

    you
    > have a backup set of D: and F: from physical drive 2, you should be able

    to
    > restore that full backup set again to partitions D: & F: whereever they

    happen
    > to be at restore time.
    > hth
    > Mick
    >
    >
    > armmover wrote:
    >
    > > Here's an important question. Suppose I have 2 hard drives, each with

    2
    > > partitions. If I backup the second (slave) hard drive with partitions D

    and
    > > F as one backup file, what happens if and when I need to restore via
    > > disaster recovery? If I have one partition on a tape there is no

    problem.
    > > But if two partitions were backed up together and the drive fails, when

    I
    > > restore do both partitions come back as before, or only one of them?
    > >
    > > I keep my C partition as a separate backup, as I do E partition, so the
    > > emergency recovery of C drive only recovers C drive. I am trying to
    > > determine if each partition should always be a separate backup tape.
    > >
    > > Thoughts??
    > >
    > > alan

    >




  4. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    Sure thing, Alan:
    Yes: First let it make the full restore set since it does do a good job on that
    set and it'll be the only complete set you'll have. Then make seperate ones for
    c: and whatever partitions you'd like to make. I just make differentials after
    the main disaster recovery set. Since be42 is too stupid to mark the file attrib
    (archive) as true during creation of the disaster set making, I just run a pipe
    command in dos to mark all files on all disks as archive bit set (attrib +a *.*
    as output of I think a "file" command). From that point a differential will just
    save the changed files and only one restore is needed to get the changed files.
    Mick


    armmover wrote:

    > Mickey
    >
    > Thanks for the comment. If I understand you correctly, if I use emergency
    > restore, to restore partitions D &F, then both partitions are restored as
    > before; the D files to the D partition, and the F files to the F partition.
    >
    > So is there value in keeping each partition as a separate backup file,
    > rather than D&F together?
    >
    > alan
    >
    > Mickey Stein wrote in message
    > news:38ED09D5.9555B02E@cts.com...
    > > From my experience using Em. Rest. (4.2) , it's very simple minded. It

    > backs up
    > > the contents of all the fat16/32 partitions it can see (i.e. if you've got

    > c: d:
    > > e: & f:, it backs up all of them to one save set). When you boot the

    > floppies,
    > > it's a little more flexible in that you can actually restore any

    > "complete" save
    > > set, but if it's an emergency restore, then you'll have to restore all of
    > > whatever's in that save set. (i.e. c: d: e: & f regardless of physical

    > disk ,
    > > etc..) -- The only way you might manipulate the restore would be by
    > > reconfiguring the partitions, but if you leave one out, it won't work.

    > I've done
    > > two restores this way just to test how it works and it works fine

    > considering
    > > that you usually would want to restore pretty well everything.
    > >
    > > I just realized I probably didn't even answer your question -- Ok -- If

    > you
    > > have a backup set of D: and F: from physical drive 2, you should be able

    > to
    > > restore that full backup set again to partitions D: & F: whereever they

    > happen
    > > to be at restore time.
    > > hth
    > > Mick
    > >
    > >
    > > armmover wrote:
    > >
    > > > Here's an important question. Suppose I have 2 hard drives, each with

    > 2
    > > > partitions. If I backup the second (slave) hard drive with partitions D

    > and
    > > > F as one backup file, what happens if and when I need to restore via
    > > > disaster recovery? If I have one partition on a tape there is no

    > problem.
    > > > But if two partitions were backed up together and the drive fails, when

    > I
    > > > restore do both partitions come back as before, or only one of them?
    > > >
    > > > I keep my C partition as a separate backup, as I do E partition, so the
    > > > emergency recovery of C drive only recovers C drive. I am trying to
    > > > determine if each partition should always be a separate backup tape.
    > > >
    > > > Thoughts??
    > > >
    > > > alan

    > >



  5. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery set
    using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system it's a
    removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).

    It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup sets to
    a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    Is this true?

    --
    - Melissa

    INALIENABLE CIVIL RIGHTS?

    To email me, remove the *very first* spam spoofing character on either side
    of the @

    TELL FIRST DATA CORPORATION to DO THE RIGHT THING! :


  6. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question


    MelissaX@Ydimensional.com (Melissa) wrote:
    >I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery

    set
    >using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system it's

    a
    >removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).
    >
    >It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup sets

    to
    >a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    >Is this true?
    >
    >--
    >- Melissa
    >Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.

    You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to split
    the image of a full C drive backup.
    In this case 1.3 g.
    I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493 mb.
    No problem, as you can split the image into multiple segments.
    This may or may not ease your considerable,and understandable frustrations.
    Scott and Rusty have responded to many posts on this issue.
    It's a bummer alright that Backup Exec cannot do what so many want it to
    do.
    This is only a reflection of wholesale communication problems with the entire
    computing industry.
    Starting with the lack of adequate, or even clearly written manuals.
    Within it's limitations, Backup Exec Desktop 98 can do a good job.
    There seems no end of frustrations however.
    Good luck in all of this. Frank
    >INALIENABLE CIVIL RIGHTS?
    >
    >To email me, remove the *very first* spam spoofing character on either side


    >of the @
    >
    >TELL FIRST DATA CORPORATION to DO THE RIGHT THING! :
    >



  7. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question



    Frank Dwyer wrote:

    > MelissaX@Ydimensional.com (Melissa) wrote:
    > >I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery set
    > >using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system it's a
    > >removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).
    > >
    > >It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup sets to
    > >a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    > >Is this true?
    > >
    > >--
    > >- Melissa
    > >Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.

    > You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to split
    > the image of a full C drive backup.
    > In this case 1.3 g.
    > I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    > Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493 mb.


    I routinely get 625MB on a CD-RW using Adaptec CD Creator 3.5 so either you've
    got something wrong with your system or you're using different Adaptec software
    than I am.


  8. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question


    Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    >
    >
    >Frank Dwyer wrote:
    >
    >> MelissaX@Ydimensional.com (Melissa) wrote:
    >> >I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery

    set
    >> >using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system

    it's a
    >> >removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).
    >> >
    >> >It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup

    sets to
    >> >a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    >> >Is this true?
    >> >
    >> >--
    >> >- Melissa
    >> >Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.

    >> You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to

    split
    >> the image of a full C drive backup.
    >> In this case 1.3 g.
    >> I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    >> Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493

    mb.
    >
    >I routinely get 625MB on a CD-RW using Adaptec CD Creator 3.5 so either

    you've
    >got something wrong with your system or you're using different Adaptec software
    >than I am.
    >



    If you format a cdr/w with Adaptecs Direct CD you will have only @ 500 megs
    worth of usable space, the rest of the space is used as a table of contents
    or FAT table how ever you like to describe it, that is the Adaptec software
    he was referring to...he is not wrong...

  9. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    scott wrote:

    > Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >Frank Dwyer wrote:
    > >
    > >> MelissaX@Ydimensional.com (Melissa) wrote:
    > >> >I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery set
    > >> >using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system it's a
    > >> >removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).
    > >> >
    > >> >It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup sets to
    > >> >a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    > >> >Is this true?
    > >> >
    > >> >--
    > >> >- Melissa
    > >> >Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.
    > >> You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to split
    > >> the image of a full C drive backup.
    > >> In this case 1.3 g.
    > >> I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    > >> Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493mb.

    > >
    > >I routinely get 625MB on a CD-RW using Adaptec CD Creator 3.5 so either you've
    > >got something wrong with your system or you're using different Adaptec software
    > >than I am.
    > >

    >
    > If you format a cdr/w with Adaptecs Direct CD you will have only @ 500 megs
    > worth of usable space, the rest of the space is used as a table of contents
    > or FAT table how ever you like to describe it, that is the Adaptec software
    > he was referring to...he is not wrong...


    Interesting-I've never used the DirectCD part of the Adaptec software as my main use
    is to copy images to other PCs. Wonder why he bothers with it if it eats up so much
    space?


  10. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question


    Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    >scott wrote:
    >
    >> Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Frank Dwyer wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> MelissaX@Ydimensional.com (Melissa) wrote:
    >> >> >I haven't even been able to get BE 98 v 4.2 to make a disaster recovery

    set
    >> >> >using my second physical hard drive, even by telling my Win 98 system

    it's a
    >> >> >removable one ( it is, I have it on a removable mobile tray ).
    >> >> >
    >> >> >It was my understanding that BE doesn't yet support emergency backup

    sets to
    >> >> >a second physical hard drive but that future versions ( when? ) may.
    >> >> >Is this true?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >--
    >> >> >- Melissa
    >> >> >Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.
    >> >> You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0

    to split
    >> >> the image of a full C drive backup.
    >> >> In this case 1.3 g.
    >> >> I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    >> >> Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493mb.
    >> >
    >> >I routinely get 625MB on a CD-RW using Adaptec CD Creator 3.5 so either

    you've
    >> >got something wrong with your system or you're using different Adaptec

    software
    >> >than I am.
    >> >

    >>
    >> If you format a cdr/w with Adaptecs Direct CD you will have only @ 500

    megs
    >> worth of usable space, the rest of the space is used as a table of contents
    >> or FAT table how ever you like to describe it, that is the Adaptec software
    >> he was referring to...he is not wrong...

    >
    >Interesting-I've never used the DirectCD part of the Adaptec software as

    my main use
    >is to copy images to other PCs. Wonder why he bothers with it if it eats

    up so much
    >space?
    >Hi Calvin; I use the Adapted Direct CD because it allows one to use a CD

    as, in effect another drive.
    You can drag and drop in explorer and delete and so on.
    Space is not normally a factor for me.
    I use the Adaptec for backing up daily work in progress to CD-RW.
    These are text files, or sometimes photo work.
    For large backups, I use spanned CD-R or tape.
    Glad you brought it up though, as it may help inform others.
    The issue of how much do CDs hold is often variable.
    Regards Frank


  11. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question



    Frank Dwyer wrote:

    > Calvin Crumrine wrote:




    > >Interesting-I've never used the DirectCD part of the Adaptec software as my

    > main use
    > >is to copy images to other PCs. Wonder why he bothers with it if it eats up so

    > much
    > >space?

    > Hi Calvin; I use the Adapted Direct CD because it allows one to use a CD as, in
    > effect another drive.
    > You can drag and drop in explorer and delete and so on.
    > Space is not normally a factor for me.
    > I use the Adaptec for backing up daily work in progress to CD-RW.
    > These are text files, or sometimes photo work.
    > For large backups, I use spanned CD-R or tape.
    > Glad you brought it up though, as it may help inform others.
    > The issue of how much do CDs hold is often variable.
    > Regards Frank


    I guess I can see why you might like to use it. (Not criticizing, just trying to
    understand why you prefer it in order to determine whether or not I would.) I
    don't have much use for drag-n-drop because its behavior changes. Admittedly it
    changes consistently based on the circumstances (copying if you drag-n-drop to
    another drive but moving if you drag-n-drop to another directory) but I still call
    that inconsistent.

    Easy CD Creator doesn't support drag-n-drop, but it has an explorer-like interface
    that lets me select which files to copy to the CD. I stop at about 625MB to leave
    some 'wiggle' room and burn the CD. As far as I can see, the advantage with
    DirectCD is that each file is burned as you select it. The advantage of CD Creator
    is that I build a list then burn them all at once. If I'm burning 625MB then I'll
    start the burning and walk away (use my other PC) for the next hour or so.

    I didn't know that you lost storage with DirectCD. The reason I don't use it is
    because it requires installing a reader on the 'receiving' PCs.


  12. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    >>Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.
    >You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to split
    >the image of a full C drive backup.
    >In this case 1.3 g.
    >I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    >Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493 mb.
    >No problem, as you can split the image into multiple segments.


    Why in the world are you using DirectCD for those backups? Set
    Drive image to create splits of 650mb and use ECDC to write those
    files to your CDRW.

  13. Re: BE 4.2 and disaster recovery - important question

    Don Sterner wrote:

    > >>Hello Melissa; Yes, apparently this is true. See Scott's post 998.

    > >You might be interested to know that I have used Drive Image ver 3.0 to split
    > >the image of a full C drive backup.
    > >In this case 1.3 g.
    > >I then used Adaptec to burn it successfully to CD-RW.
    > >Only caveat is that a CD-RW formatted by Adaptec holds only about 493 mb.
    > >No problem, as you can split the image into multiple segments.

    >
    > Why in the world are you using DirectCD for those backups? Set
    > Drive image to create splits of 650mb and use ECDC to write those
    > files to your CDRW.


    Hi Don:
    This may be the wrong forum for my question, but I really don't know the
    difference between when you would use Direct CD & Easy CD Creator. When do you
    use each?
    --
    Thank you in advance.

    Phil
    P.S. Responding in the newsgroup is fine, as I will check back. If you wish to
    respond to me directly, please remove the ZZ after my name & ZZ before the domain
    name.



+ Reply to Thread