BENT 8.5 and Netware server 4.11 - Veritas Backup Exec
This is a discussion on BENT 8.5 and Netware server 4.11 - Veritas Backup Exec ; I have backup exec 8.5 on a windows 2000 server. I can succesfully backup
two other W2k servers. It is the novell server I am having problems with.
If I go through the backup selections and browse down to stuff ...
-
BENT 8.5 and Netware server 4.11
I have backup exec 8.5 on a windows 2000 server. I can succesfully backup
two other W2k servers. It is the novell server I am having problems with.
If I go through the backup selections and browse down to stuff on the
netware server that I want to back up, I can see both the SYS volume and our
DATA volume. When I expand the MAIL volume we have all I get is a bunch of
empy folders. I expand one of those and I get more empty folders, this will
go on and on. So what is going wrong here? Why can I view some of the
netware server and not other parts of it? Any suggestions on this and how
to properly set up Backupexec to remotely backup a netware server would be
appreciated. Hopefully I have explained this well enough.
Thanks,
Bill
-
Re: BENT 8.5 and Netware server 4.11
Couple of thoughts. This may sound silly but check your windows system to
make sure you have it set to view all files and not hide some.
also what type of email are you using?
"Bill" wrote:
>I have backup exec 8.5 on a windows 2000 server. I can succesfully backup
>two other W2k servers. It is the novell server I am having problems with.
>If I go through the backup selections and browse down to stuff on the
>netware server that I want to back up, I can see both the SYS volume and
our
>DATA volume. When I expand the MAIL volume we have all I get is a bunch
of
>empy folders. I expand one of those and I get more empty folders, this
will
>go on and on. So what is going wrong here? Why can I view some of the
>netware server and not other parts of it? Any suggestions on this and
how
>to properly set up Backupexec to remotely backup a netware server would
be
>appreciated. Hopefully I have explained this well enough.
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>
>