Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure? - Veritas

This is a discussion on Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure? - Veritas ; Hello We have Backup Exec Desktop setup on a Windows 2000 Pro computer, scheduled for nightly backups. When I check the task scheduler, I am seeing different result codes - including 0x0, 0x65 and 0x68. I check the log, and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure?

  1. Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure?

    Hello

    We have Backup Exec Desktop setup on a Windows 2000 Pro computer, scheduled
    for nightly backups.

    When I check the task scheduler, I am seeing different result codes -
    including 0x0, 0x65 and 0x68.

    I check the log, and it's not giving much information on these codes.

    Are these Backup Exec specific result codes, or is it a Windows 2000
    specific code? I have tried the Microsoft site and the Veritas site, but
    neither has given me useful information yet.

    Can anyone offer any info on what these result codes mean, or where I can
    find out more information?

    Thanks...

    Mark.



  2. Re: Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure?


    Mark,
    Codes listed in the task scheduler are windows codes. if the windows task
    scheduler is giving you trouble, try using the backup exec scheduler. To
    do this, you have to disable the windows one. Go to the services control
    panel under admin tools. Doubleclick the task scheduler service, click stop,
    then change it to disabled from automatic. then close that out, go to start
    - programs - backup exec - and choose backup exec scheduler. Now try rescheduling
    the jobs in backup exec like you normally would and see if that helps.

    "Mark" wrote:
    >Hello
    >
    >We have Backup Exec Desktop setup on a Windows 2000 Pro computer, scheduled
    >for nightly backups.
    >
    >When I check the task scheduler, I am seeing different result codes -
    >including 0x0, 0x65 and 0x68.
    >
    >I check the log, and it's not giving much information on these codes.
    >
    >Are these Backup Exec specific result codes, or is it a Windows 2000
    >specific code? I have tried the Microsoft site and the Veritas site, but
    >neither has given me useful information yet.
    >
    >Can anyone offer any info on what these result codes mean, or where I can
    >find out more information?
    >
    >Thanks...
    >
    >Mark.
    >
    >



  3. Re: Scheduling Backups - Success or Failure?

    James

    I will try that... But do you know where info is available on what the
    "Last Result" code values mean that show up in the Windows task scheduler?

    Thanks...

    Mark.

    "James" wrote in message
    news:3b9001a5$1@hronntp01....
    >
    > Mark,
    > Codes listed in the task scheduler are windows codes. if the windows

    task
    > scheduler is giving you trouble, try using the backup exec scheduler. To
    > do this, you have to disable the windows one. Go to the services control
    > panel under admin tools. Doubleclick the task scheduler service, click

    stop,
    > then change it to disabled from automatic. then close that out, go to

    start
    > - programs - backup exec - and choose backup exec scheduler. Now try

    rescheduling
    > the jobs in backup exec like you normally would and see if that helps.
    >
    > "Mark" wrote:
    > >Hello
    > >
    > >We have Backup Exec Desktop setup on a Windows 2000 Pro computer,

    scheduled
    > >for nightly backups.
    > >
    > >When I check the task scheduler, I am seeing different result codes -
    > >including 0x0, 0x65 and 0x68.
    > >
    > >I check the log, and it's not giving much information on these codes.
    > >
    > >Are these Backup Exec specific result codes, or is it a Windows 2000
    > >specific code? I have tried the Microsoft site and the Veritas site, but
    > >neither has given me useful information yet.
    > >
    > >Can anyone offer any info on what these result codes mean, or where I can
    > >find out more information?
    > >
    > >Thanks...
    > >
    > >Mark.
    > >
    > >

    >




+ Reply to Thread