Re: onbar vs onarchive

Thanh wrote: > > In article <8vb2s1$cdk$1@news.xmission.com>, > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: "Andy Kent" <andykent.bristol.DontSpamMe@virgin.net> > > > > > >What experiences do folk have of using onbar and onarchive? My > memories are > > >of onbar being a pain to set up but onarchive being full of bugs (at > least > > >in its earlier versions). > > > > > >What are the relevant merits and which are people using? > > > > Wotcha, cock! > > > > OnArchive is still a seething mass of evil horror. Do not touch! > > > > OnBAR isn't particularly difficult to set up, especially not compared > to > > OnArchive. > > I thought I heard that OnArchive will be obsoleted in IDS-9.3x We've been waiting for that message since version 6.00! :-) The summary probably looks like: Utility Easy to set up Easy to use ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ OnTape Yes Yes OnArchive No No OnBar No Yes But it depends on your requirements. My advice is if you have a large amount of data (100's Gb) or you have a complex tape system, then use OnBar, otherwise use OnTape. Cheers, -- Mark. +----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Mark D. Stock mailto:mdstock@mydas.freeserve.co.uk |//////// /| | http://www.informix.com http://www.informixhandbook.com |///// / //| | http://www.iiug.org +-----------------------------------+//// / ///| | |This email will self-destruct in |/// / ////| | |10 sec. If you received this email |// / /////| | |in error, sorry about the mess. |/ ////////| +----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+