cobalt

[jakob krabbe]

I haven't really been following the thread in a long time... But i did
notice retrospect client is not valible for Unix (Linux) plattform.

Are there anyone out there using the cool Cobalt servers? I have looked
into the NASRaQ, Network Area Storage, in a rack format, to use as a
fileserver in a mac + pc shared network.

I think it's a shame Apple doesn't supply us with servers in standard 19"
rack format... I mean, we don't have alot of space at the office but we
could get ten of these Cobalts and they take up hardley no space at all but
still do the work!

I've also looked at a PC solution (Dell, PowerEdge rack format) and a Mac
solution (G4).


http://www.cobalt.com/products/nas/index.html

---

When it comes to back-up, can we sync these with the rest of the clients
that are using Retrospect. In a PC / Mac solution I know there would be no
problem using our existing backup server...

There is a SCSI socket at the back on the Cobalts...

thanx for any input or advice,

/ jakob



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[Harry Mueller]

At 9:08 AM +0100 3/7/00, jakob krabbe wrote:

>I haven't really been following the thread in a long time... But i did
>notice retrospect client is not valible for Unix (Linux) plattform.
>
>Are there anyone out there using the cool Cobalt servers? I have looked
>into the NASRaQ, Network Area Storage, in a rack format, to use as a
>fileserver in a mac + pc shared network.

You bet, I have an installed base numbering in the 40s. They 
work really well and even though there is no Retrospect Client (yet) 
I have been able to back them up by mounting the directories on the 
backup server and backing them up from there.

I expect that since OS X Server and OS X are based on 
Unix-like kernels that there will probably be a Linux/Unix compatible 
Retrospect Client sometime in the not to distant future.

>I think it's a shame Apple doesn't supply us with servers in standard 19"
>rack format... I mean, we don't have alot of space at the office but we
>could get ten of these Cobalts and they take up hardley no space at all but
>still do the work!

There are a few companies that do conversions of desktop 
servers into rack mounted servers. I saw one that will convert an 
iMac into a 1u rackmountable case. I wish I could remember the name 
because I would think about buying a few.

--Harry
-- 
--
Harry Mueller
MaxSolutions, LLC
708 Little City Road
Higganum, CT 06441-4246
USA

860-345-9986
860-345-9136 (fax)

http://www.maxsolns.com


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[jakob krabbe]

This is slightley OT but I'm not the one to judge. In respect to this list
and if listmom want us to, we'll go private.

---

>   You bet, I have an installed base numbering in the 40s. They 
>work really well and even though there is no Retrospect Client (yet) 
>I have been able to back them up by mounting the directories on the 
>backup server and backing them up from there.

After sending my first mail this came to my thought. The most important for
me if is our network WORKS not if the backup takes three or six hours.

Mounting the volumes at start seemed like a working solution.

---

In case of a failiour, how does these (Cobalt) machines REALLY work? I
mean, is it easy to remove / change / upgrade the harddrives? Just in case
of the expecting(?) diskcrash... ;-) Same with RAM.

Crashing drives... that's my worst fear. On the mac and pc I know how to
deal with it... sort of... but on a closed unix server with no screen...!?

Crashes aren't *that* common, it's just when they come they truely stink!

What about your 40 servers, have you had any failing drives?

thanx,

/ jakob


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?

[andrew]

Have verified those archives recently? I've found that many of my DDS-2
archives from three years ago, on Sony, Maxell, Verbatim, and Fuji tapes,
have become unreadable.
- Original Message -
From: "SK Suh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?


> At 8:35 PM -0800 03/06/2000, Chuck Hornish wrote:
> >I'd suggest getting rid of the 60-Meter tapes and re-writing the
> >data onto longer tapes. Are you keeping the catalogs as well as the
> >tapes? Are these tapes archives or backups?
>
> We would hopefully be keeping old catalogs and 60/90 metre tapes, as
> they're completed (archived) jobs from years gone by.
>
> There's no need to write to the ancient 60 metre tapes, but being
> able to write to the 90 metre tapes would be an asset.
>
> Stephen K. Suh
>
> 
> Network R&D + Admin Tel 613/228-0250
> Studio Colour Group Fax 613/228-0254
> 6 Gurdwara Rd., Suite 105
> Nepean, ON K2E 8A3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:
> Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?

[Robin Bateman]

Hi All

Don't want to be too contentious but Tape is NOT a good medium for archiving

see note below for reason why

CD is much better

Also has the benefit that all Macs (OK OK Unless v old!) & most peecees have
CD so v easy for users to get archived data back

ie: no dat drive (etc) no multi copies of retrospect (& training etc)

Just a thought. Over to you


R



   ,,,
  /'^'\
 ( o o )
-oOOO--(_)--OOOo

   Robin Bateman
   Topology UK LtdTel: +44 (1494) 539991
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Fax: +44 (1494) 539992
   www.topology.co.uk

 .oooO
 (   )   Oooo.
--\ ((   )--
   \_)) /
 (_/


> From: "andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: ardent micro
> Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:20:52 -0500
> To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?
> 
> Have verified those archives recently? I've found that many of my DDS-2
> archives from three years ago, on Sony, Maxell, Verbatim, and Fuji tapes,
> have become unreadable.
> - Original Message -
> From: "SK Suh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:41 PM
> Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?
> 
> 
>> At 8:35 PM -0800 03/06/2000, Chuck Hornish wrote:
>>> I'd suggest getting rid of the 60-Meter tapes and re-writing the
>>> data onto longer tapes. Are you keeping the catalogs as well as the
>>> tapes? Are these tapes archives or backups?
>> 
>> We would hopefully be keeping old catalogs and 60/90 metre tapes, as
>> they're completed (archived) jobs from years gone by.
>> 
>> There's no need to write to the ancient 60 metre tapes, but being
>> able to write to the 90 metre tapes would be an asset.
>> 
>> Stephen K. Suh
>> 
>> 
>> Network R&D + Admin Tel 613/228-0250
>> Studio Colour Group Fax 613/228-0254
>> 6 Gurdwara Rd., Suite 105
>> Nepean, ON K2E 8A3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> --
>> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Archives:
>> Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:
> Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 




--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[Luke Jaeger]

Marathon Computer, 

Harry Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> There are a few companies that do conversions of desktop
> servers into rack mounted servers. I saw one that will convert an
> iMac into a 1u rackmountable case. I wish I could remember the name
> because I would think about buying a few.
> 
> --Harry

-- 


top of the world,

Luke Jaeger, Technology Coordinator
Disney Magazine Publishing
Northampton, Massachusetts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and may not represent
the opinions of Disney Publishing, etc etc etc.

*


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?

[andrew]

CD is a good medium to archive on, but remember too that it's far from
permanent. Scratches, changes in humidity and temperature, and natural
defect growth can all effect the stability of CD-Rs...I think they're rated
only for 20 yrs...not that it would matter much...I doubt that anyone will
have a data CD reader in 20 yrs.

Personally, I back up on tape every night and archive onto CD-R. I also
duplicate every archive CD and keep the copy off-site.

Oh yeah, four years ago I used to use 650-meg magneto-opticals for this but
my drive started to fail, and I was able to transfer everything to CD-R
before it went completely...now it's useless and virtually unfixable
(Olympus, the manufacturer, can't/won't fix it). Remember Apex 4.3-gig MO
discs? (*shudder*)

That was a 1-to-1 copy process and time-consuming (~30 MOdiscs = 60
CDs)...I'll probably start re-archiving CDs onto DVD-RAM soonat least
I'll be able to get 8 CDs on a single disc.


- Original Message -
From: "Robin Bateman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?


> Hi All
>
> Don't want to be too contentious but Tape is NOT a good medium for
archiving
>
> see note below for reason why
>
> CD is much better
>
> Also has the benefit that all Macs (OK OK Unless v old!) & most peecees
have
> CD so v easy for users to get archived data back
>
> ie: no dat drive (etc) no multi copies of retrospect (& training etc)
>
> Just a thought. Over to you
>
>
> R
>
>
>
>,,,
>   /'^'\
>  ( o o )
> -oOOO--(_)--OOOo
>
>Robin Bateman
>Topology UK LtdTel: +44 (1494) 539991
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Fax: +44 (1494) 539992
>www.topology.co.uk
>
>  .oooO
>  (   )   Oooo.
> --\ ((   )--
>\_)) /
>  (_/
>
>
> > From: "andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organization: ardent micro
> > Reply-To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:20:52 -0500
> > To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?
> >
> > Have verified those archives recently? I've found that many of my DDS-2
> > archives from three years ago, on Sony, Maxell, Verbatim, and Fuji
tapes,
> > have become unreadable.
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "SK Suh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?
> >
> >
> >> At 8:35 PM -0800 03/06/2000, Chuck Hornish wrote:
> >>> I'd suggest getting rid of the 60-Meter tapes and re-writing the
> >>> data onto longer tapes. Are you keeping the catalogs as well as the
> >>> tapes? Are these tapes archives or backups?
> >>
> >> We would hopefully be keeping old catalogs and 60/90 metre tapes, as
> >> they're completed (archived) jobs from years gone by.
> >>
> >> There's no need to write to the ancient 60 metre tapes, but being
> >> able to write to the 90 metre tapes would be an asset.
> >>
> >> Stephen K. Suh
> >>
> >> 
> >> Network R&D + Admin Tel 613/228-0250
> >> Studio Colour Group Fax 613/228-0254
> >> 6 Gurdwara Rd., Suite 105
> >> Nepean, ON K2E 8A3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Archives:
> >> Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Archives:
> > Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:
> Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[admin] ApacheCon

[jon *]

Hey all,

Be nice to each other for the next week or so. I'm off to ApacheCon
 (I'm also nominated to be on the Board of
Directors for the Apache Software Foundation ) and will probably not
be watching over this list much for the next week as a result.

;-)

thanks,

-jon



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[Owen Watson]

I asked our ISP about them, and he said he'd tested them and didn't 
do very well under load. I think he used a load of the thin Sun 
rackmounts in the end.

>
>Are there anyone out there using the cool Cobalt servers? I have looked
>into the NASRaQ, Network Area Storage, in a rack format, to use as a
>fileserver in a mac + pc shared network.

.
Owen Watson
at home in Wellington, New Zealand


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[Don Foy]

on 3/7/2000 12:27 PM, Owen Watson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I asked our ISP about them, and he said he'd tested them and didn't
> do very well under load. I think he used a load of the thin Sun
> rackmounts in the end.

We have found that for large graphic use, they are not fast enough. They
left us waiting for files to move across the net.
===
Don Foy  Herald-Citizen
Webmaster and Network Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.herald-citizen.com
Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[Harry Mueller]

At 7:27 AM +1300 3/8/00, Owen Watson wrote:

>I asked our ISP about them, and he said he'd tested them and didn't 
>do very well under load. I think he used a load of the thin Sun 
>rackmounts in the end.

Generally you are looking at configuration or network traffic 
problems when they perform poorly. I'm willing to accept that there 
are better rack mounted web servers out there. However, as a network 
storage I have found that the NASRaQ can't be beat.

--Harry
-- 
--
Harry Mueller
MaxSolutions, LLC
708 Little City Road
Higganum, CT 06441-4246
USA

860-345-9986
860-345-9136 (fax)

http://www.maxsolns.com


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cobalt

[jakob krabbe]

>   Generally you are looking at configuration or network traffic 
>problems when they perform poorly. I'm willing to accept that there 
>are better rack mounted web servers out there. However, as a network 
>storage I have found that the NASRaQ can't be beat.
 
Thanx alot for your input. It is greatly valuable.

To clear things out a bit, we are heading for (at least) three new
investments and our company is a growing advertisement agency with print
and web in-house.

One or more common (generic) fileservers, an in-house webserver and a tape
drive to retrospect.

The NASRaQ was meant for filesharing and as I learn they seem fairly
outstanding when it comes to ease of use. No hot screens, nu dusty
keyboards etc.

Internet is different since we use alot of Microsofts's software in their
BackOffice suite, mainly ASP and Access connections. We're not
"microsofish" and I fear FrontPage... (I use DreamWeaver for ASP hacks.)

Well, if Apache have something similar to Microsofts technology maybe
Cobalts can be used for the web as well...

---

I have the feeling we're really close to an off topic thread here. If you
have an interresting answer but the thread is too far away from Retrospect,
please mail me in person, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

thanx,

/ jakob


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

4.2 update and DHCP problems

[Todd Reed]

I'm having trouble keeping my DHCP clients activated with Retrospect 
4.2 for Mac.

The clients, on a 10Bt hub, were all connecting fine via Appletalk 
and Retrospect 4.1

I began by updating the application to 4.2. Then I went into the 
client database and began switching client protocol to TCP/IP. After 
switching, they disappeared from the network. So we began updating 
the clients by going from system to system and running the updater.

The next day I noticed that the clients were inactive in the client 
database. After looking at the clients in the network window, the 
systems also were active in the client database.

We updated a couple of systems again that day to get them to 4.2. 
Next day, again all the clients in the database are inactive. Nothing 
got backed up the night before. I know at least one of the clients 
got a full install of 4.2 from scratch, not an update.

I could use some suggestions as to why this is happening.

Todd Reed

Infoasis Internet Services534 4th St., Ste. 2San Rafael, CA 94901
  (415) 459-7991 FAX: (415) 459-7992  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.infoasis.com


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DDS-3 or DDS-4?

[SK Suh]

At 10:18 PM -0800 03/06/2000, Chuck Hornish wrote:
>We have a Sony DDS-4 which can write to 90-meter tapes, but not the
>60-meter variety.

Thanks for the enlightening info, Chuck!

Will DDS-4 at least read the older 60 metre DAT media?

Stephen K. Suh


Network R&D + Admin Tel 613/228-0250
Studio Colour Group Fax 613/228-0254
6 Gurdwara Rd., Suite 105
Nepean, ON K2E 8A3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

NT4, Daylight Saving, Time Zones and Retrospect

[Malcolm McLeary]

Guys,

Last night a bunch of Retrospect Backup for Windows 5.0 disk to disk backups
failed because there was insufficient space on the disk which holds the
storage sets ... it was as if the system decided to do a recycle without
resetting the storage set first or Retrospect "thought" every file had been
"touched".

I've looked at the files on the server (a Cobalt Qube BTW ... wouldn't a
client be nice) and dates have not changed.

What did change yesterday was that although daylight saving has NOT ended
NT4 decided it had (and reset the clock) so I turned off the "Automatically
adjust clock for daylight saving changes" and changed time zone instead.

I guess changing time zone was "bad", but with daylight saving we are
effectively +1100 instead of the usual +1000.

Is the time zone change what cause my problem.

Is this a "problem" Dantz can fix in Retrospect or is it a WinNT 4.0 problem
(which will NEVER be fixed) or is it something I shouldn't have done in the
first place.

Cheers,  Malcolm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

   Information Alchemy Pty Ltd
 ACN 089 239 305
   Canberra, Australia

Malcolm McLeary  Mobile:   0412 636 086
Managing DirectorEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 This message was sent using Outlook Express 5.0 for Macintosh.




--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]