On 3/7/2001 7:53 PM, "Craig Gaevert" wrote:

> I can think of one good reason - it (incrementals) doesn't work.  At least any
> of the
> times I've tried, I've come in the next morning to find a total mess with no
> backup.
> After a week of trying and no backups, I gave up.  No knock on Dantz here,
> just that it
> has never worked for me and I wouldn't recommend it.  YMMV.


I'm very curious as to what has happened with incrementals that causes you
to say that they don't work. In all the installations I've done I've never
had a case where they *didn't* work (and I've had systems with anywhere from
a single machine to over 500 machines work without a hitch). I'm wondering
if you are expecting them to act in a certain way that is different than how
they actually function.

Incrementals using Retrospect are handled *very* differently than other
backup software implementations. What were you hoping for/expecting them to
be and what kinds of problems were you having?

I'd be happy to work with you on this off-list with a summary to the list if
you'd like.


To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search:  <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>

For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.

Reply via email to