pcguy99 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I am evaluating retrospect 6.5 for two customers. Both are running 4 or 5 station Windows peer to peer LANs. One is using Win98 on all of their machines. The other has a mixture of Win2k and Windows ME. After looking through the messages here it appears that if one wants to do a emergency restore of any of these machines due to a hardware failure then it involves two steps. Go through the process of getting the O/S reinstalled, apparently on a non standard directory, along with the NIC and chipset drivers. Then install the Retrospect client followed by restoring the full back from Retrospect. I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to purchase another product such as an imaging software and do periodical images of these work stations drives to removable local hard drives. Would cut down having to pull all of the data over the 10/100 Mbit LAN for complete backups and speed up the restore process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natew Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Hi The biggest drawback to imaging is managing all the disks and images. You also have to set up the imaging on each machine. Retrospect allows you to centralize all of the management and scheduling. In most cases that usually means the backup routine is more likely to be followed. Bare metal restores are time consuming no matter what you do. It may be slower to pull the data oveer the network but the time savings on day to day management is worth it. In my humble opinion anyway... Nate @ Dantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.