Can you describe the "serious weakenesses" you mentioned?  We've been
using it since it became available to back up at the file level and
haven't noticed any problems.  Luckily, we haven't had to restore much
yet, so maybe that's why.  I'd like to hear about the problems you've
encountered that are making you consider switching to backing up at the
file set level.

Thanks.

Tina Hilton

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinhard Mersch [SMTP:mersch AT UNI-MUENSTER DOT DE]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:40 AM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM/DFS experience
>
> Hi,
>
> well, we are using ADSM and DFS, and some, but probably few, others
> also
> do. So, what is it you want to know?
>
> In general, there are two ways to backup DFS filesets with ADSM:
> First,
> doing file level backup using the DFS enabled ADSM client (dsm[c]dfs).
> Second, doing fileset backup using the DFS backup system (bak) and the
> ADSM agent program (buta), which replaces butc. The latter is oftenly
> combined with cloning filesets and giving the users access to the
> clones.
>
> We are currently using the former approach. It gives more comfort to
> the
> users (allowing them to restore inactive backups), but has some
> serious
> weaknesses. We will therefore switch to the latter soon.
>
> --
> Reinhard Mersch                     Westfaelische
> Wilhelms-Universitaet
> Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Roentgenstrasse 13, 48149 Muenster,
> Germany
> E-Mail: mersch AT uni-muenster DOT de                  Phone:
> +49(251)83-31583
>
> Larry Rudsinski writes:
>  > I have been getting email from ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU for about two
> weeks
>  > now, and out of the 300 or so email messages only a few said
> anything about
>  > ADSM/DFS. We are looking for anyone who has had experience with
> backing up
>  > DFS filesets.
>  > Thanks!!
>  > Larry Rudsinski