> From: Thomas Denier [mailto:Thomas.Denier AT MAIL.TJU DOT EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 6:17 PM

> My site just went through a disaster recovery test. In the
> process we discovered a critical (and as far as I can tell,
> unstated) assumption in IBM's documentation of bare metal
> recovery processes for Windows NT.
  [ ... ]
> As nearly as I can figure
> out what happened, they had to edit the boot.ini file in the
> root directory to get it to show the right disk type, hardware
> address, and partition number for the partition containing the
> Windows system, and then copy a number of files from the \wintemp
> directory tree (the one containing the copy of Windows
> installed from CDROM at the hot site) to the \winnt directory
> tree (the one containing the copy of Windows restored from the ADSM
> server). These included the hardware-oriented registry hives, hal.dll,
> and a file whose contents depended on the number of processors.

 perhaps i missed something but i don't see the point here. you can't
duplicate a nt system between two different hardware machine without
having to modify lots of things, it's the way nt works.

 you can install a new nt, and then restore stuff like "program files"
and your data, restore *some* part of registry but not the hardware
hive. or have a second spare machine identical to the dead one.

 fx

---
 fx AT axa-franceassurance DOT fr | Errors have occurred.
 fx AT axa-franceassurance DOT fr | Errors have occurred.
 Networking & system stuff | We won't tell you where or why.
   Axa France ASsurances   | Lazy programmers.