increment Posted March 31, 2003 Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 I have 3 seperate locations to backup. The local backup is Multiserver 6 and I currently have 2 4.3 servers that can be used (I'm not sure if we need to upgrade them or not). I have to backup 2 other sights using a server at each. These will mostly be Windows clients and the server will be storing everything on a local HD. Since the Mac and PC catalogs and storage formats are different we are planning on just moving the entire backup file to the local server here and storing that on tape (on a weekly basis). The big questions are -- Is 4.3 the best (or adequite) tool for the job, i.e. will it be able to backup the windows clients (Win2k) to a HD efficiently (or at all)? If it isn't, and since we don't have servers at those remote locations, should we upgrade to the Workgroup Mac 5 version? I know the Desktop version might work, but with the added client cost on top of the ugprade it would be more cost effective to just get the Workgroup, besides that we may also have tape drives at those remote locations. If we upgrade to version 5 are there any really good reasons to also upgrade to OS X? I know that for stability reasons it would be better, but it's another added cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Quote: Is 4.3 the best (or adequite) tool for the job, i.e. will it be able to backup the windows clients (Win2k) to a HD efficiently (or at all)? If it isn't, and since we don't have servers at those remote locations, should we upgrade to the Workgroup Mac 5 version? I know the Desktop version might work, but with the added client cost on top of the ugprade it would be more cost effective to just get the Workgroup, besides that we may also have tape drives at those remote locations. If we upgrade to version 5 are there any really good reasons to also upgrade to OS X? I know that for stability reasons it would be better, but it's another added cost. 6.0 Multi-Server is the best tool for the job in regard to backing up Windows clients. Restores and backups are more efficient and you don't have to worry about RegCopy to capture the Registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
increment Posted April 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Quote: Restores and backups are more efficient and you don't have to worry about RegCopy to capture the Registry. Ok - given that I don't really care if the registry is backed up anyway, AND I will never be doing a bare metal restore (we only backup user files and there profile), we decided to go with Mac OS X Workgroup 5. Mostly because of the discount for upgrading and we already have the hardware for it. And after looking at some knowledge base articles (I had to dig for a long time to find anything usefull, maybe I just suck at searching) I'm certain that 4.3 can't handle what we need since the catalog is stored in the resource fork (max's out at 16MB) and the fact that that size depends on how many files you have, not how large they are, I'm pretty sure we'd be screwed pretty quick. Maybe I didn't look deep enough and version 5 for OS X does the same thing? Either way, it's much less expensive for us than the Windows server option, though with that we would be able to copy the retrospect backup file to our server here and be able to use it directly. Thanks for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Quote: Maybe I didn't look deep enough and version 5 for OS X does the same thing? Retrospect 5.0 for Mac completely changed file backup sets. When the resource fork limit is reached the catalog will split off from the backup set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.