Author: Bob Matthews <Robert.Matthews AT SEINF.UNIGE DOT CH>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:38:04 +0200
We've been looking at the implications of migrating our PC and Mac clients to ADSM Version 3 and have come to the conclusion that it's far too easy for users to backup all accessed disks, both local
Yes, I agree with you, the original design will lead to backing up cd's, network drives etc. IBM is fixing it in two stages. The recently release client fixes have an option 'backup domain' in the 'A
You didn't miss a thing. This is being marketed as a FEATURE! The gui ignores the domain parm in dsm.opt, but I've been told that the command line and scheduler do not (I'm not willing to try). If th
Author: Shane Smith <shanesmith AT WESTPAC.COM DOT AU>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:56:30 +1000
i think its great that it's so easy. it makes the job of backingup/restoring/admin etc very easy. besides, if u got important data that needs to be backed up then it should be on a raid-5 server, and
Author: owner-adsm-l (INTERNET.OWNERAD) at SNADGATE
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:59:01 -0500
You are exactly right - it is way too easy, and has serious system integrity issues in my mind. Based on this one issue, I will not distribute V3 clients until it is fixed, unless there is some very
Author: Bob Matthews <Robert.Matthews AT SEINF.UNIGE DOT CH>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:06:20 +0200
Thank you to those people who replied to my remarks about it being far too easy for a user of the version 3 GUI to backup the entire universe. Unfortunately, what I hear is not encouraging. Neither t
Author: "Robinson, Cris" <Cris.Robinson AT LIBERTYMUTUAL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:29:24 -0500
Bob - You are so very right. This issue is one my major beefs with vendors. There is not enough input from the customers. Version 3 was being developed before we could ask for input. We are faced wit
Author: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:10:14 -0500
The proposed future development for the GUI includes initially displaying the "My Computer" node and also the nodes "Local file systems", "Removable file systems", and "Network file systems" beneath
The solution to this problem is delivered in two phases. The most expedient solution we could get to the field was to provide a backup domain selection on the actions menu of the GUI. This is availab
You're right, it *SHOULD* afford no additional exposure if the DOMAIN actually DID establish the default....WHICH IT ISN'T DOING VIA THE GUI! Why is this so hard to see? Al Barth The proposed future
Author: Bob Matthews <Robert.Matthews AT SEINF.UNIGE DOT CH>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:03:25 +0200
I'm taking the liberty of forwarding this contribution to the list as the sender was not able to do it himself: -- - Bob, I agree with you fully. Bob, I agree with you fully. I have had users backing
Author: Brett Walker <walkerbl AT VNET.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:36:28 -0800
** WARNING: Long Post ** Sigh. Well, it looks like I need to wade into the fray. As the developer who actually designed how this function works, maybe I can shed some light on this issue, at least to
Author: "Robinson, Cris" <Cris.Robinson AT LIBERTYMUTUAL DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 09:24:27 -0400
Thanks Brett - It was good to hear some thoughts on the subject from ADSM. We would like to make it next to impossible for users to even see the Network volumes. I don't want them backing up any netw
Author: Bob Matthews <Robert.Matthews AT SEINF.UNIGE DOT CH>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:44:08 +0200
Thank you to Andy, Mike and Brett of ADSM Development for clarifying the version 3 GUI/domain situation. I fully appreciate the performance and usability implications on which the design was based. U
Author: Brett Walker <walkerbl AT VNET.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 12:20:34 -0700
Chris, This would certainly be new function, as we have never allowed this before. But I can certainly see the benefit of it. I will carry this requirement into our internal discussions, but I also s
Author: Brett Walker <walkerbl AT VNET.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 12:20:37 -0700
Bob, Neither V2 nor V3 offered the kind of protection you want. With V2, it was just as easy to select additional items in the domain. Also, they still had to select a menu option (called Incremental
Author: "Robinson, Cris" <Cris.Robinson AT LIBERTYMUTUAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:43:42 -0400
This is my final say on this issue. I promise. Sorry if I sound rude but I have had it with the crap and excuses from IBM today. 1) I say again, why on earth would you want to even consider having a
Author: Bob Matthews <Robert.Matthews AT SEINF.UNIGE DOT CH>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 15:39:28 +0200
Brett, I feel the argument is starting to go round in circles so, like Cris Robinson, I shall make this my last blast on the subject. Well they should. That's the basic problem. With V2 they had to s