I really never had much luck with it, but that may be due to a misunderstanding on my part about how it's supposed to work. It seems like you have to install it on every server, and create boot CDs from each individual server for the backups to work. It also never really worked with my Netbackup environment, I suppose maybe if I used it's built in backups it would work better...

--
James Pulver
LEPP Computer Group
Cornell University


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Robert Marino
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Relax-and-Recover

No but I do have experience with its predecessor Mkcdrec
they were written by the same people and relax and recover was suppose
to be a ground up rewrite to fox most of the common complaints about
mkcdrec. my experience with mkcdrec was it was a pint in the neck
whenever you used it the first time on a new class of box with
different drivers but once you got it working once you could just copy
the config script to the rest of your servers. it was rock solid
reliable, efficient and easy to use.
I use to work for an "Appliance" company years ago and I used it to
create DR recovery disks for our clients, and I know one of their
devices still uses it. It was absolutely fantastic. I was thinking of
using Rear my self as a DR roll back disk for systems getting rebuilt

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Supposedly:
>
> http://relax-and-recover.org/
>
> supports a GPL Linux bare metal disaster recovery solution that is purported
> to be easy to set up and requires no maintenance.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this application?  Does it perform as is
> claimed?  Is it truly bare metal:  if one provides compatible hardware after
> a "bare metal" failure, will this system "automagically" provide a fully
> operational clone?  (Compatible hardware means a system for which the
> drivers exist in and are automatically loaded and configured by the
> environment being "bare metal recovered", even if the new "bare metal" is a
> different hardware configuration than the failed unit.  Thus, an IA-32
> environment should boot on many generic X86-64 platforms, but a pure X86-64
> implementation cannot run on a true IA-32 machine -- the IA-32 machine is
> not compatible hardware in the latter situation.)
>
> Thanks for any information.
>
> Yasha Karant