Networker

Re: [Networker] incompatibilities between different Networker versions

2003-01-08 11:22:11
Subject: Re: [Networker] incompatibilities between different Networker versions
From: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:29:50 -0500
I remember several years back, when we first bought NetWorker, their
support was fairly decent. If you called them, you were able to speak
with someone right away. But, like all companies in the rat race, they
expanded and now you're lucky if you get a call back within 24 hours.
Typically, too, the support you get leaves a lot to be desired. It
really comes down to who you get. Some of the technical support races
circles around my knowledge, but other tiems I might as well consult a
drunken child.

As the saying goes: "In the rat race, even if you win, you're still a
rat"

George

"Tarjei T. Jensen" wrote:
>
> OTim Mooney wrote:
> >I, however, *have* seen a situation involving a dual-homed UNIX networker
> >server and multiple dual-homed NetWare boxes where the only solution to
> >a problem we're facing is "spoofing" hostname resolution by adding entries
> >to the /etc/hosts on the server and the equivalent on the NetWare clients.
> >This is not a DNS problem -- the DNS for our server farm is well
> >maintained and has been for years.
>
> That is indeed a situation where networker falls flat on its face. It is a
> long time ago since they should have resolved the multi homed host problem.
>
> The fact that Netware support in networker is fairly bad adds to the
> misery. It is beyond me that networker does not bother to determine whether
> a file has been automatically compressed. Neither does it use more than one
> CPU. The file listing is ghastly, etc.
>
> As a matter of fact, I don't see why the networker client should not
> automatically detect whether a file has been compressed. If you compress a
> few KB and see no result, then why bother compressing the file? Anyway,
> lots of compressed files are selfidentifying.
>
> The CPU cost of unsuccessful compression is huge! It is most visible when
> one adds client compression to a netware client which has file system
> compression enabled. Oh, boy is there a difference.
>
> Legato is not terribly good on documentation either, so as legato France(?)
> points out, the original posters problem is largely due to unwillingness to
> pay for neccessary training. The sad fact is that Networker is a complex
> program which works in mysterious ways.
>
> >I agree with this, for all platforms that Legato says NetWorker supports,
> >except NetWare.  While NetWorker for NetWare has certainly improved since
> >the 4.15 client, it's still not very robust on NetWare.
>
> Netware support in networker stinks. It is like Legato have no pride at all
> in the product.
>
> greetings,
>
> --
> Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
> to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
> http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
> also view and post messages to the list.
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=