Gerhard,
I'm glad this is cleared up and appreciate you posting back the results.
As far as the question concerning if it is bad doc or poor
implementation, I will be a good boy and simply say it is not the latter.
Dan T.
----------
> From: Gerhard Ginzler <gerhard.ginzler AT akh-wien.ac DOT at>
> From: Gerhard Ginzler <gerhard.ginzler AT akh-wien.ac DOT at>
> To: dan thompson <thompsod AT usaa DOT com>; ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Windows NT 4.0 (2.1.6) Backup Registry again
> Date: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 5:21 AM
>
> > Gerhard,
> >
> > I recommend that you view the sched.log on a test nt backup with the
> > exclude and include you list below. To state the obvious, see if the
log
> > has messages that the registry was successfully backed up (using NT's
> > regback to adsm.sys) as well as messages indicating that adsm.sys
subidr
> > was backed up. If you see the first type of messages, but not the
second
> > then I would deduce you do need the include statements you ask about.
If
> > you add these include statements then obviously you should test again
for
> > verification. By doing this testing you will have satisfied yourself
of
> > what is required without relying on people of unknown experience
levels.
> >
> > Please post back your results if you decide to run the tests.
> >
> > Dan T.
> > ----------
>
> Here are the results:
>
> Test 1:
> -------
> Include/Exclude list:
>
> ex *:\...\*
> in "*:\...\user junk\...\*.*"
>
> The sched.log shows ANS4427I Registry Backup function completed
> successfully.
> The incremental backup doesn't backup the files in directory adsm.sys.
> The function "Restore by tree..." shows the same, "Restore registry"
> results in "Drive not found".
>
> Test 2:
> -------
> Include/Exclude list:
>
> ex *:\...\*
> in "*:\...\user junk\...\*.*"
> in *:\adsm.sys\...\* <---------------------
>
> The sched.log shows ANS4427I Registry Backup function completed
> successfully.
> The incremental backup does backup the files in directory adsm.sys.
> The function "Restore by tree..." shows the same, "Restore registry"
> works as designed. All is wonderful, bells are ringing etc.
>
> Question: Is it a lack of documentation, is it a sloppy implementation?
>
> Gerhard Ginzler
|