
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOV-RS.DOC -- 19971114 -- Email thread on Novell Replication Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------

	Feel free to add or edit this document and then email
	it back to faq@jelyon.com




Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:54:57 -0500
From: Jim Pretty <jpretty@CITY.LONDON.ON.CA>
Subject: NRS

I recall a message from a few days ago on the list about Novell
Replication Services.

I was wondering how many people have tried this and if anyone
besides myself is really annoyed at the cumbersome directory structure
imposed upon the replication from dissimilar named volumes.

Part of an email which I sent to Novell is excerpted:

In banking, insurance companies, educational institutions, libraries and
city organizations, such as the one I work for, a typical server
configuration reflects the corporate and/or functional structure of the
organization.  Quite typically this means larger and more complex
servers at a few centralized sites and smaller, less complex servers at
satellite sites.  The complexity often is reflected in the amount of
storage and often the number of volumes defined.

If, as is also typical, one wishes to replicate data from the larger sites
to the smaller, the distinct possibility exists that you will be
replicating to dissimilar-named volumes.

Imposing a cumbersome directory structure upon servers is not my idea
of simpler management.

Under the scheme so far laid out by NRS a situation similar to one we
are faced with, would yield the following:

Source:

//SVR1/VOL4/SHARED/DATA/MAPS

Desired Destination:

//SVR2/SYS/SHARED/DATA/MAPS

NRS Imposed Destination:

//SVR2/SYS/VOL4/SHARED/DATA/MAPS

or for those really caught unaware

//SVR2/SYS/SHARED/MAPS/VOL4/SHARED/DATA/MAPS

Why not simply allow the definition of a destination directory?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:45:40 -0700
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: volume don't mount

>>I have some very important document on the server which is
>>not in the backup.
>
>If the document is really, really important and can't be reproduced
>otherwise then don't do anything with the bad disk that contains it.
>Contact a company specialized in data recovery and let them tell you
>what to do.
>
>In the meanwhile purchase new disks ASAP and make use of them.  By
>re-installing Netware, configuring at least mirroring, restoring your
>last backup, etc.
>
>While waiting for the disks browse the Internet and gather some
>documents (TID's) to learn about the how-to and other issues of
>interest and to watch out for.
>
>Arthur B.
------

	Sound advice, as usual. There is something folks may wish to keep
in mind, Novell's Replication Services for INW 4.11 et seq. This exports
copies of files to other servers, allowing files to be checked in/out etc,
and it keeps things in sync automatically. It's a new product in the works.
I have not tested a disaster recover situation of automatically importing the
copies to a freshly remade server, but a regular copy operation will work.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

