Hi everyone!

I am sorry to be such a pain today.  As you can probably tell, I am going in
many directions at once and trying to keep up with it all.  I do really
appreciate any help I get from you because this listserv is a very good
tool.

For Windows 2000, we were testing the process of doing a re-directed restore
to recover a system to test whether we could re-name the server and then
disconnect the original from the network and replace it with the recovered
system.  Obviously, we have determined that we can not do a re-directed
restore with the system state objects without re-naming the server first.

What we ended up doing was:  1. Re-naming the server we were restoring to.
                                              2. Restored System
State/Registry.
                                              3. Restored all the drives
                                              4. Restored System
State/Registry a second time.

Was step 2 really necessary?  We didn't want to take chances so we did.

The only problem with the whole process is that you would have to have the
original server disconnected from the network throughout the process.  If we
could have done a re-directed restore of the System State/Registry, we could
have completed the whole process and only disconnected the original from the
network at the point we were ready to re-boot.

Brenda Collins,
Storage Solutions Group
Phone: 651-848-5808
Email:  brenda.collins AT westgroup DOT com

Disclaimer:  "The views, opinions and judgements expressed in this message
are solely those of the author.  The message contents have not been reviewed
or approved by West Group."