Tim
Wed Oct 05 19:35:13 CDT 2005
Agree. But last I looked, one only had to ask and have a good justification
to get to the VSS API - I haven't tried as I am not about to write such an
app so could be wrong, however any Certified Partner (I am) with a good case
would be in with a shot.
" Besides, the Backup API can only be used by conventional backup
software." Huh? It has its purpose and limits. You could use it for a file
only backup system to record ACL's etc and alternate streams in one hit -
thats what its for, so I don't really see a limit on its use apart from
being limited to Backup Operators. You can always write a service to do the
backups under a Backup Operator account and UI runs in any context...
Disc copy programs (or partition copy) are easy to write. I've written one
so it must be :) - it is no more difficult than a file copy program: open
disc or partition, read / write until EOD - that is a dumb way of doing it
but on an idle volume its as good as any. Yes I have tested it, no I would
not rely on it - and this is where a lot of the expense of this type of s/w
comes in. Writing one that intelligently skips free space is much more
difficult, adding in compression is a piece of cake. Coping with file system
changes in the process is not. There is a good article over at
www.codeproject.com on reading the NTFS log file - a good volume copy system
could ensure it has a log file active, records everything then just as per
SQL Server then finishes off by appending what has changed only during the
duration of the backup (still possible to have holes). Writing an image
viewer is much more complex, but there are no doubt easy ways around this
too such as mounting the image as a disk quietly and opening the disk using
stock API's. Another concept I have thought about is 'umbrella files' -
partitions or files that break rules and cover other partitions by
duplicating start sector and and sector - these break rules, but give you
dual access to systems when stock API's shut you out due to 'File is already
open'. However this seems redundant as there appear to be stock methods to
achieve this anyway. I am sure some of the Ghost like programs used to do
this on earlier OS as people have reported odd partitions on these systems.
The trougle is always the same: writing a simple app that works in 1
scenario is easy enough. If it touches tape drives then you are in for a
huge expense with all the exceptions that exist. Getting it commercial is
tuff. That is why I too often quote UltraBac as a good product as it came so
quickly out of nowhere and was even if not leading the field ==> excellent
programming which gave the prospect that it was going to be less buggy than
the competitors long term.
2 cents.
"cristalink" <cristalink@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OXlZ3beyFHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> state. I doubt if "real" backup s/w vendors use anything other than the
>> Backup API's anyway (for files), so its the jobs, network, scheduling,
>> media, compression, UI, enumeration etc... that makes those products.
>
> It's not that simple. VSS API is not publicly available. Microsoft
> provides it to "partners" only under NDA. Besides, the Backup API can only
> be used by conventional backup software. "Disk imaging" software is in a
> far worse position, especially when one backs up a live system. There is
> no "disk imaging" API in Windows. Anyone who claims their "disk imaging"
> backup software can create an "exact copy" of a live disk partition is a
> liar or, at the minimum, misleads their customers.
>
> --
>
http://www.cristalink.com
>
>
> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:di07l2$h5b$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Charlie, the underlying API's haven't changed, but NTBackup is up with
>> the play - VSS integration and the ability to hook into all aspects of
>> system state. I doubt if "real" backup s/w vendors use anything other
>> than the Backup API's anyway (for files), so its the jobs, network,
>> scheduling, media, compression, UI, enumeration etc... that makes those
>> products.
>>
>> Why they left out a SQL connector I don't know, its piss easy to write.
>> Why its not an app that exposes COM objects - well we all know why - ES
>> writes it and that would be the end of 3rd party backup products.
>>
>> Thank goodness there is an Exchange connector built in.
>>
>> I have read horror stories covering multiple versions of other vendors
>> products failing at the most important stage - system restore. I have
>> also had to apply hotfixes to overcome W2K3 issues. none are perfect.
>>
>> It is the ommission of system state that I get concerned about - system
>> backups are useless without it and the numerous 'backup' systems that
>> can't actually backup the system is the majority...
>>
>> I would use UB if it was MTF (its not right?), but probably wouldn't care
>> any longer as a) I no longer have a tape drive and b) no longer sell
>> them...
>>
>> As for not recommending NTBackup, i am sure you have good reasons... its
>> not great but it works.
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:uKqDvQKyFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> I've written books and books about MS operating systems. I've written
>>> them for MS Press. And I've always recommended that my readers consider
>>> third party alternatives to the NTBackup program. That being said, I've
>>> never heard of the program Steve suggests, so I have no comments about
>>> it. I have used UltraBak over the years and can definitely recommend it
>>> for a serious DR solution. Not sure what their status is WRT x64 at this
>>> point, however. I suspect they're not there yet.
>>>
>>> Frankly, the included NTBackup is a very old program that hasn't gotten
>>> much better since I first saw it years and years ago. MS has a new
>>> solution coming -- Data Protection Manager. But that's a pure server
>>> product and still only in beta for version 1.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>>
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Tim wrote:
>>>>> Take my advice... Scrap Microsoft backup. If your system and data are
>>>>> that important to you, you should be considering something like
>>>>> Lasso-Logic.
http://www.lassologic.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Why? 'cos you say so?
>>>>
>>>> You really want us to believe one hyperlink to a previously unknown (to
>>>> me) product should be used in preference to the MS issued and supported
>>>> product? The first things it says on the web site about the product is
>>>> "Purchase Now" then with little adieu, "Buy Now". Get real. It may be a
>>>> remarkable product but with that kind of introdcution and such a hard -
>>>> shove it down ones throat sell - I won't be looking any further than
>>>> the
>>>> first web page as it gives me no reasons to at all.
>>>>
>>>> What should we take your advice? Just because you say so? You *need* to
>>>> do
>>>> better than that if you are going to promote a product and giving
>>>> shut-case statements such as the above wreaks.
>>>>
>>>> While others may have heard of your product, personally, I treat
>>>> Advertisements such as this as unwelcome and snake oil.
>>>>
>>>> <applies snake oil to shattered nerves>
>>>>
>>>> - Tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>