Users!

[andygates]

Which of these did I actually send tonight at 10pm after checking in on my server migration (after a great night-school session: vertical down outside corner welds, you are my bitches)?

1: "Dear users, the migration of your data to the new, spacious and high-performance server cluster will not go ahead tonight as planned due to technical issues which we'll investigate as soon as we can.  In the meantime, please continue to work on the current server as before."

2: "Dear users, the migration of your data from the creaky old fossil box to the preposterously over-spec server cluster will not go ahead tonight as planned because you've chosen to use such staggeringly long filenames that they crashed my migration routine.  I mean, come on, I'm all for lucid file structures but whole sentences as folder names?  You've saved every webpage you've ever found interesting with its full name, then given a "that huge name - comments" subfolder with more inside that, ad infinitum?  Easy, tiger.  We gave you a namespace but you eated it.  Your linguistic legerdemain did things that Windows, in its deep stupidity, permits but cannot handle, which I shall try to cheat my way around as soon as I can face it.  In the meantime, please continue to create novella-size file structures on the current server as before."

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Damn I feel old.

We used to use Norton Ghost (now Symantec) for that crap.
Got to the point it was easier just to "ghost" it from a personal copy and lie about doing the hard way.
The ability to transfer all data, ignore filenames, AND resize drives on the fly was just toooo cool.


Although used to be an issue for cloning multiple install machines because XP/2k/NT got nasty when multiple drives had the same Windoze Internal ID's or that multiple drives had the same Drive Marker (but they fixed the latter and the former serves cheats righteously)

That and the ability to serve over a network, image whole drives into split files and compress on the fly, and LanManger drive mounting to get remote file images off 100+Mbs networks.

Is there no similiar product any more?
(it was like under 100 dollars a license too)

Re: Here's the thing

[andygates.livejournal.com]

We use Ghost a lot. But it's some data from one volume going into another live volume, which isn't Ghost's speciality - and Ghost looks at 110Gb and says, "excuse me?".