DISK CLEAN-UP
Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Clean-up
OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, General, Disk Clean-up
Windows XP: Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Clean-up OR
My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Disk Clean-up
SCANDISK
Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, ScanDisk OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools,
Error-Checking Status
Windows XP: My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Error-Checking
STANDARD: Checks for file system errors
THOROUGH: Also checks for bad sectors (damaged areas on disk)
DEFRAGMENTING
Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Defragmenter OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Proper
ties, Tools, Defragmentation Status
Windows XP: My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Disk Defragmenter OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter,
Properties, Tools, Defragmentation

File Recovery Software
Recupero di Dati
Datenrettungs Software

Anonymous User 9/8/2005 5:11:34 AM

Forgive the long and possibly wandering comments.

Syncsort was our 'one and only' software for backing up our systems, since about 1999.
The product worked as advertised, and allowed us to backup our Unix and Windows clients from one system.
Then, about 1-2 years ago, the problems started.
We received an upgrade, and gladly installed it, only to find out that during the upgrade our 'catalog' was destroyed. Apparantly the process consumed all disk space (Needed to have 110% of existing catalog size free to install, and we did not, but no warning was given), and failed to convert the catalog correctly. We also didn't find this out, until after the next catalog save completed, which erased the last catalog save. Although we should have had more than 1 tape for the 'catalog', we assumed that the catalog was also being backed up with the normal saves. We were informed from tech support, that the 'data' directory is automatically exlcuded from the normal system backups, even if you explicitly select it.
So, we were forced to 'start over', with no way to reload the catalogs from the old tapes, as most other systems are able to do.
Recently having upgraded to AIX 5.3, we decided to upgrade to BackEx latest 2.2 version, with the web interface.
The upgrade went smooth with no signs of problems.
We succesfully restored a few files, and were happy, until we attempted to do a backup.
The system reported hardware problems on the 'SCSI' interface.
Syncsort support blamed the hardware. We disagreed, since all was working until that upgrade, but gladly contacted IBM and exabyte.
IBM replaced the SCSI cards, and the cables. Exabyte tested the drives, and found no problems. Syncsort still insisted there was a hardware problem.
We purchased another SCSI card, and installed the library onto that controller, but BackEx still reported hardware problems, on every SCSI interface that had a tape drive attached (3 scsi cards now). It was apparant to us, that the problem was related to syncsort, and possibly it running on AIX 5.3
IBM's tools reported no errors, and was able to backup to every tape drive in the system
An engineer from Syncsort attempted a few fixes, they even sent a tech on site, who simply reviwed the cabling and installation...
Well, after 30+ days, we still do not have a backup, and have decided to switch to another vendor, and funny enough, there are no SCSI bus errors, and we're using the same hardware / drivers as was used with syncsort's backup express.


Goodbye Syncsort.

Anonymous User 11/22/2004 2:16:50 PM

Our company is in the process of reviewing enterprise backup software. I read Tom Iwanski's "Enterprise Backup Software" (June 2000, InstantDoc ID 8725) and wondered whether the author has done any recent reviews.

Todd Edwards 10/30/2002 9:15:47 AM

For a more recent look at backup products, see Ed Roth's "Enterprise Backup Solutions" (October 2001, InstantDoc ID 22239). I suggest that you thoroughly test any products in your own environment, if possible. Some vendors provide a timed trial version of their software that's viable for comparative testing. Defining what features are most important for your environment and which product addresses them the best is crucial. For example, performance might be critical for your organization because you have a narrow backup window. Ease of use is also important, especially if you'll have moderately skilled technicians performing backups and restores. The list is unique to each environment.

Tom Iwanski 10/30/2002 9:14:39 AM

I read this article, and being a TSM administrator, I was suprised to see Netbackup held in such high regard. After reading the article I came across the following post on www.adsm.org (a TSM support website) and thought it to be VERY Pertinent to the information presented here:

-----Original Message-----
From: Seay, Paul [mailto:seay_pd@NAPTHEON.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: VM TSM migration options: Veritas vs Netbackup


There has been a lot of recent discussion on the list about the subject area
of Veritas on Intel versus TSM. The comments here are for everyone, not the
author of the question, nothing is personally meant by any comments here.
Bottomline, NetBackup doesn't scale at all. We are ripping it out of the
Windows environment right now. We worked for 18 months with Veritas
Engineering to try to fix the product. They simply gave up. The word
"compete" should not even be put in the same sentence when speaking of
Netbackup vs TSM on Intel. If you have less than 20 clients to backup and
none with over 50GB of data, Netbackup will be OK. That is if you never
need to create duplicate offsite copies or need a deleted file policy.
Duplication on Windows is an impossibility in the Netbackup world unless you
buy 4 times the hardware you have in comparison to TSM and a 24 to 72 hour
window to create those duplicates. Deleted file policy, Netbackup, asks
what is a policy? No such animal, so you get stuck when you do not catch
that a file has been deleted before your tapes expire in Netbackup. The key
word here is tape expiration, not backup object expiration. NetBackup has
no such thing as storage management. I refer to it as NetBackup,
GrossNoRestore. In other words, NetBackup backs up some of your stuff, but
you will never be able to restore it all.

Yeah, UNIX is next. After the debacles of implementing 3.4 of Netbackup,
Veritas really dug the grave deep. Oh, I forgot to mention that our Windows
Netbackup 3.4 migration lead to a down (backups lost) situation for weeks
and we ended up figuring out what the problems were.

Because we lost half the performance from 3.2 to 3.4 on Windows, we were
faced with needing to change. More or better hardware would not fix the
problem, hell, we are using ESS disk and Magstar FC tape with high-end
servers. Before the migration we were getting 4.5MB/sec and up to 10 in
certain situations. Veritas could not figure out how we were getting these
levels of performance. They could not reproduce them with our own server
and identical hardware in their labs. Simply, Netbackup cannot scale in the
Windows environment.

I consider myself an expert on Netbackup and a knowledgeable person on TSM.
I believed the Netbackup hype, thought the product was the best because it
had the features that I thought were needed. When actually, implementing
you find out the features differences with TSM are gimmicks to get you to
buy and really never scale making them unusable. These gimmicks cause you
to overlook the real issue of being able to restore your business, which
implies having control and the ability to direct what is backed up.
Netbackup's GUI is impressive, it is the registry hackers dream. Wait till
all the timeout crap hits the fan and you start tweaking registry entries,
creating undocumented touch files and finding out there is poor to
non-existent Windows support at Veritas for Netbackup when you have a
critical problems. When you are paying 23% maintenance from a large account
you would think that having half a dozen critical down situation open calls
would get someone from Development engaged to work with your account. We
finally surmised these people did not exist anymore.

Yes, TSM has its quirks and customers have lost data over the years, but
probably mostly of their own doing and not really learning the TSM product.
After 911, everyone should be taking backup and recovery at a different
seriousness. If not, you are in the wrong business. That means if you are
not an expert in the backup product you are using and doing regular disaster
recovery tests, then shame on you, get to be an expert. If you are not
capable, choose a vendor that has support, Tivoli is one of them. The shame
if it is we automatically set the support expectation bar 2 notches higher
when it is an IBM company, but we will pay more to a fly-by-night
organization and make excuses for them when they do not answer the phone.

This all said make your NetBackup/TSM decision on facts, not likes or
dislikes. Your business depends on you getting this right and ultimately
your job and reputation.

Consider one final note. Your understanding of TSM is an irreplaceable
asset. You could spend 50K training people alone on Netbackup and still not
be able to support the product. The cost of TSM is much less than Netbackup
in the long term. See if you can work a deal with IBM to convert your
drives to FC or SCSI for a nominal fee. The "staying with TSM" carrot may
be all that is needed to push the button hard enough to get someone's
attention. ESCON is relatively slow compared to SCSI and fibre channel.
FICON is a different story. If you have MVS, that is ultimately the
cheapest answer to your problem.

Brandon McFeron 3/18/2002 8:26:34 AM

It is nightmare to deploy Syncsort's Backup Express in an enterprise environment. Let say you have 1000 nodes with 100 servers in your domain and you want to install the client on all the servers. BEX would prompt you for EVERY node in the domain asking whether you want to install the client on that computer. There is no way to choose the servers you want to install from a list. Anyone feel like answering 1000 Yes/No questions? The alternative would be going to each server and do the install.

There is also no way to see a list of upcoming backup jobs for the next week. You can only see jobs day-by-day.

This is definitely NOT an enterprise solution.

Jason Leo 9/10/2001 2:55:23 PM

The author's experience with BackupExpress "Communication problem" is just the beginning of all the problems this product has. I have been trying to get the product to run in my environment for 2 months starting with 214A to 214C and have yet to get it working.

First off, there was no installation documentation when I was working with 214B. And after few calls to Syncsort and few registry changes, the 214B finally recognized Exchange 2000 Mailboxes. But when I tried to do a restore, the attachments were not restored.

And after a month and promises of 214C would fix all the problems, I gave it a try again only to find out that the program quits itself when I try to format 3 tapes. Still waiting for a working product...

Jason Leo 8/24/2001 4:22:21 PM

,br>
I work in a large IT organization, and one of my key responsibilities was to identify, implement, and maintain an enterprise-level data backup-and-recovery solution. I spent many months working with colleagues, vendors, and consultants to research, test, and evaluate various packages. I was quite eager to read Tom Iwanski's Lab Reports: "Enterprise Backup Software" (June 2000)--­especially because the Lab's test environment somewhat resembled the data and hardware types in my production environments.




Unfortunately, my excitement began to wane as I read through the tests and results, and at the end of the article, I was left with an overwhelming sense of disappointment. To test the product, the reviewer moved a large amount of data from multiple nodes to tape, then moved the data back--­that's all. NT's native backup software can do that. Aside from using a central repository (a tape library), the review didn't address--­or even raise--­any enterprise-
level concerns.




I would rather have read about data version control, data expiration methods, media reclamation processes, copy-pools, off-site storage, media rotation strategies, backup server protection, and bare-metal restores. What happens when a node fails after a year and needs to be restored from scratch? Where are the tapes, and are they still good? When a client requests that a specific set of files be restored from specific dates, how easily and reliably are the files located? What happens when the backup server dies? How easily can a new machine take over while retaining all vital history? In my enterprise, I face such questions each day.




Some of the packages in this comparison address and resolve these enterprise-level concerns. Unfortunately, the differentiating features of the products never got a chance to see the light of day. In my opinion, if you want to just stick your data on tape quickly and be able to restore it some day, you go for the cheapest package that is easy to install. But, if you really want an enterprise-level backup-and-recovery solution, you better do more testing.



Duane Cooper 10/19/2000 3:24:38 PM

You bring up several points that the Lab will definitely look at so that we deliver product reviews that meet the needs of readers. In the Lab, we face two constraints whenever we want to review
a group of products: the amount of time it will take to test all the products and
the number of pages the article can occupy in the magazine. For the five products that we reviewed, comparing the features you mentioned could have tripled our testing time and doubled the length of the final article. I don't offer these factors as an excuse but simply
an example of some of the challenges we face as reviewers. Please send other suggestions about how we can make the most of our product reviews to letters@
win2000mag.com.
--­Tom Iwanski



Tom Iwanski 10/19/2000 3:14:28 PM

Your tests appeared to be very objective and are as informative as possibly could be. The testing environment you set up was nothing short of amazing given the quantity, quality and degree of difficulty of the items involved both in terms of hardware and software. The results were clear in their relevance and intuitiveness. I score this piece a solid "10". I would personally like to have 10% of your testing budget.

Rocky Habeeb 9/21/2000 7:57:32 AM