ADSM-L

Re: adsm 16 vs 32 bit

1997-11-12 08:35:56
Subject: Re: adsm 16 vs 32 bit
From: Daniel Thompson <thompsod AT USAA DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:35:56 -0600
William,

  As far as I know there is not limitation on restoring data with the
32-bit client that
  was backed up with the 16-bit ADSM client.

Your description of the problems with the windows 95 box doesn't give quite
enough information as to the root cause of the failure.  You mention that
the client FAT HAD to be 16 bit.  This does not have anything to do with
the ADSM client.  Win95 originally only used FAT16 logical drives but the
current OEM version allows FAT32 as well.  If the drive was FAT32 before
the failure, I would make certain that the drive is formatted FAT32 before
the restore attempt.  Essentially, make certain that whatever it was
partitioned as before the failure is what you partition it as before the
recovery attempt.  However, I HAVE NOT heard of any problems with Win95 and
restoring/backing up between the 2 formats.  If anyone else has
successfully done this or knows of any concerns between FAT16 and FAT32,
please share this info.

I hope this helps.

Good luck,
 Dan T.
----------
> From: William Ball <wball AT KENT DOT EDU>
> From: William Ball <wball AT KENT DOT EDU>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: adsm 16 vs 32 bit
> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 6:18 AM
>
> Does anyone know if it is possible to restore datasets that were backed
> up with a 16 bit ADSM with 32 bit ADSM software?
>
> We ust went through "5" full bare metal restores of a pc and everytime
> after ADSM was finished restoring the datasets, the pc (windows 95
> client) was unbootable. It has been suggested that the client FAT HAD to
> be 16 bit also but that attempt ended in a "dynamic internal error"
> (whatever that was). I'm in the process (2 days) of trying to reproduce
> the problem on another client but it keeps having hard drive problems,
> so even if I DO get it to work, I have my doubts that I could get it to
> work 2 times in a row.
>
> At any rate, one of the variables is the original client was upgraded
> from 16 to 32 bit and like all "deserving" clients that was in September
> even though we automatically start his scheduler every day.....he
> apparently doesn't want to be bothered with typing in his password but
> that's another issue.
>
> --
>
>
>
>     Bill Ball
>    Email: WBALL AT KENT DOT EDU
>
>      ()_()   ()*()
>       (_)     (_)
>
> Have a Disney day.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>