Backupexec USB Tape drives and Compression
We typically install HP Tape Drives & Symantec Backupexec. In 2010 we installed a HP USB DAT 160 with Symantec Backupexec 12.5. The backup would not compress. Symantec told us that Backupexec is capable of compression & HP told us that the tape drive is capable of compression. But we could not get any compression when used together. An engineer in our firm did some digging around & came back saying that Symantec Backupexec will not support compression on USB Tape devices. We finally gave up & purchased a HP SAS DAT 160 & compression worked. I am not looking for do this do that suggestions, trust me we have done it all. I am not concerned about how much compression & the factors that affect compression. As far as I am concerned 1MB over native capacity is compression My question is does anybody (would love to hear from Symantec) know for a fact if it is still true for the latest version of Symantec Backupexec i.e. It will not support compression on USB Tape devices?Backup Exec 15 - where to find manuals, guides and compatibility information
Are you looking to find information related to Backup Exec 15? If so, here is a list for your reference. Bookmark now! Backup Exec 15 Documentation Backup Exec 15 - Administrator’s Guide Backup Exec 15 - Readme Backup Exec 15 - Performance and Tuning Guide Backup Exec 15 - Licensing Guide Backup Exec 15 - Command Line Interface (BEMCLI) Help Download Backup Exec 15 - Compatibility Backup Exec 15 - Software Compatibility List Backup Exec 15 - Hardware Compatibility List Backup Exec 15 - Getting Started What's Different in Backup Exec 15 Benefits of upgrading to Backup Exec 15 Backup Exec 15 Trialware Download About upgrading from previous version of Backup Exec to Backup Exec 15 How to migrate (move) and upgrade Backup Exec from 32-bit computer to 64-bit computer that has a different Windows OS Backup Exec 15: Step-by-Step guide to download and install the program
Converting Norton Ghost 15.0 to SSR 2013
We have recently received notification that Norton Ghost has been discontinued and consequently a free 60-day trial of SSR 2013 is being offered. It clearly states that Ghost must first be uninstalled, but nowhere is there any up front statement of "backward compatibility". The 309 page SSR 2013 User's Guide does not have the word "ghost" in the text. The absence, in your message to Norton Ghost users, of any reference to backward compatibility suggests that the two products are completely different. After all, if there was a simple conversion path, I am sure your marketing people would have made a clear, bold statement about this in trying to retain Norton Ghost users. Our assumption, therefore, is that SSR is not 100% backward compatible; and therefore we should be advising clients NOT to uninstall Norton Ghost, NOT to install the new SSR 2013, BUT to switch to Acronis True Image instead. Is our assumption a reasonable one? If not, where is the documentation about transition and conversion from Ghost to SSR? Obviously we are not going to risk our reputation or damage to clients based on casual and possibly ambiguous comments in a forum. At the very least, we would expect to see an officially documented Symantec technical statement about backward compatibility, transition, conversion tools, etc.Question : Regards backup exec 10d
Issue is Server was carashed re-built a new server with same hardware and trying to restore the backup from old server to a new server Getting error : Invalid physical volume library media identifier. Customer want to know if this is related to hardware issue or software issue ? I found a KB link : "Invalid Physical Volume Library Media Identifier" (a0008105 HEX or e00008105 HEX) is reported when a restore job fails. Please let me know If the above KB link will be helpfull ?
