Does Backup Exec 9.1 for Netware just stink?

[Paul Coen]

Okay, we've been a Backup Exec site for years. I've been pretty happy
with it, even with the occasional problem (or bad release).

However, 9.1 has just pushed me over the edge with this product. The
latest release solved a problem where after a certain number of
connections, BE could no longer connect to cluster volumes (that's
useful . . .), but the Windows server agent still has trouble installing
to servers that had the old BE 9.0 agent on them, it now has trouble
talking to our linked Compaq/HP MSL5026 library reliably, the "job
editing" feature of the (*#(# java managment application *still* doesn't
work correctly (it was broken in BE 9.0 as well), and we're seeing other
assorted problems. Never mind the fact that if you spend the money for
the SAN Shared Storage option, you lose the ability to back up to disk.
Not that it's mentioned in the product literature anywhere I can find.

I probably could get some of this fixed, if I decided to spend the next
month doing nothing but babysit Veritas incidents, but it just doesn't
seem worth the effort and time. Does anyone doing something besides the
entirely dirt simple (one server with a locally attached drive) have a
positive Backup Exec 9.1 experience?

As it is, I'm probably going to call Syncsort. This feels like a bad joke.

[Richard Beels [SysOp]]

1. to answer your question: yes, mostly. ;-( It seems the more
complex a system you get, the more problems Be has.

2. if you're serious about syncsort, check your email. There's a good
reason why it's the only backup software we recommend.

--
Cheers!
Richard Beels
http://www.dsi-consulting.com
Collaboration without complication

[ruediger....@logimatik.ch]

Hi Richard,

could you please sent me the same Email with syncsort informations for my
customers under Nw6.x Clustering, they also have the sam problems with
Brightstore, Be and other tools.

Thanks a lot

Rüdiger Ruttkowski
Georgfischer Logimatik AG
ruediger....@logimatik.ch

[Erik de Jong]

Yes it does, and so is their TechSupport !
Since one year we aren't selling CA anymore (which is great !), and BE9.0
seemed to be a really good product, but now we are considdering to kick BE
as well.... 9.1 stinks !!!

I did a test for Syncsort half a year ago, is Netware now supported as a
Master (Catalog) server or is there still the need for a windows machine...?

--

<ruediger....@logimatik.ch> wrote in message
news:21cPb.1796$P5....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

[Mike]

Erik de Jong wrote:

>
> I did a test for Syncsort half a year ago, is Netware now supported as a
> Master (Catalog) server or is there still the need for a windows
> machine...?

Not as the master yet (although you can run the master on linux or other
*nix OS so you can still avoid windows) but it is supported now as a
device server.

-Mike

[Richard Beels [SysOp]]

NW still isn't supported as the master server; you still need a Windows
or *nix box.

This is pretty much the only NW limitation now and to me, it isn't that
big of a deal since the master server only does catalog stuff and you
shuold be backing that up every day anyways. 2.2 has some cool stuff
for catalogs also.

[Richard Beels [SysOp]]

done.

[Sylvain Gagnon]

Same here, can you send me the email? Thanks.

"Richard Beels [SysOp]" <rbe...@dsi-consulting.net> wrote in message
news:VA.00000f6...@dsi-consulting.net...

[Richard Beels [SysOp]]

ok, done.

[Dean Nicholls]

Hi Richard, I wonder if you could also forward that email to me at the
following address.

dnic...@hgr.com.au

Many thanks.

Dean

"Richard Beels [SysOp]" <rbe...@dsi-consulting.net> wrote in message

news:VA.00000ff...@dsi-consulting.net...

[Richard Beels [SysOp]]

ok....