Re: Backint date y2k
2000-01-03 02:45:03
> So,
> Does this mean we will have a year 2006 problem, when we go from 9F to 00,
> or will we have a problem in 2026 when we go from 9Z to 00 ?
>
> Should we start a working party now to look into this ? I think that we
> need some consultancy for this. Tell you what, I'll look at the 2026
> problem you look at the 2006 problem ...
>
Rene Lambelet
Nestec SA - 55, Av. Nestle - CH-1800 Vevey
Tel: ++41'21'924'35'43 / Fax: ++41'21'924'45'89
E-Mail: rene.lambelet AT nestle DOT com
> PS Happy new year.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adriana Abouchar [SMTP:adrianas AT BR.IBM DOT COM]
> Sent: Saturday, 1. January 2000 13:34
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Backint date y2k
>
> Hello there and Happy New Year,
>
> We have verified that after the transition from 1999 to 2000 Backint
> 2.3.x
> logs now shows in the year digit 9A instead of 00. We have found
> documents
> saying that this is expected and normal, so I just want to share
> this
> information to all the ADSM forumers using SAP
> and Backint :
>
> For SAP we need a unique backup ID. No matter if there is a date in
>
> the ID or not.
>
> For convenience the ID should be ordered the newest on top.
> We only have 16 digits for our ID. So we can't use a 4 digit year.
> We decided to increment the year by 99, 9A, 9B, 9C, ... to keep
> the order. Because of the history of BACKINT this was the most
> reasonable way for us to avoid the year 2000 problem. But SAP
> doesn't care of the contents of the backup ID. So you shouldn't
> run into any trouble.
>
> Regards,
> BACKINT Team Boeblingen
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adriana M. Sanchez Abouchar
> IBM Brazil
> email: adrianas AT br.ibm DOT com
|
|
|