Brian, concerning Reply #7, the rationale for omitting “or not at all” in my comments in Reply #1 is based on Symantec’s own statement(s) that a possible cause for a restore failure
may be the use of an incremental recovery point. I have no facts to support the statement, but I’m assuming that Symantec does.
Again, I can’t find the citation where Symantec discusses this point, but I am reasonably confident that I am recollecting the gist correctly.
In total, I believe that we may be trying to “pick fly poop out of pepper,” as a friend likes to say.
If incremental recovery points are less reliable that independent recovery points, I suspect that the delta is sufficiently small so as to not warrant consideration. Knowing that LiveState Recovery in the corporate environment uses the incremental capability is sufficient testimony to its reliability, from my perspective.
* * * * * * * * * *Rad, by the way, what’s your motivation for starting this thread? Have you made the transition to Ghost 9/Ghost 10
and are debating whether or not to use incremental recovery points?