On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:56:02 -0500, it was written:
>I am trying (or being forced to)defend my decision to use Tivoli over
>Arcserve. What are my reasons again? I have been pitching Tivoli and
>rolling it out with goos success to a Netware and NT environment that
>consists os about 4TB of data ov
In arc serv u need not use BMR as in tivoli.
-Original Message-
From: Scott G Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tivoli vs Arcserve 2000
I know that I probably should do this, but I can't help myself.
I am trying
I'll second everyone on their comments about ArcServe and add that their
Exchange agent is terrible. On Exchange 5.5, we had many instances of
backup failures and even worse, corrupt backups that were reported in the
backup log as being good. Also their message level backup is kludgy, slow,
and
On 6 Sep 2001, at 9:08, Cory Heikel wrote:
> First and foremost, the support for arcserv is lousy at best -
While I didn't work with Archserv, I've watched our archserv admins
and had many conversations with them.
- Their support truly is very, very bad.
- The product doesn't scale. It seems
First and foremost, the support for arcserv is lousy at best - and trust me
you need support. CA has long been known for disappearing after the contract
is signed. When we finally got to the point where we demanded that CA come
on-site to get the product working three things happened:
1. We found
