On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 decook AT amoco DOT com wrote:
> One thing I would want to double check is that with the EXCLUDE, if a
> file is found to be excluded yet there exists backup versions... all
> those versions are expired (backups, not archives) So if you are
> looking at excluding files but want to have some form of backup, you
> will need to push an archive of that file to be safe.
> (like I said... this would be worth a double check 'cause it has been
> over a year and a version change since I checked it)
>
> later,
> Dwight
>
Absolutely right. I have checked that, and from what I've seen, an excluded
file becomes expired immed. Yes - the idea was first to "somehow" archive
these files, and then exclude from backup (then again, the problem remains with
how to re-include the excluded file, once it has been changed ...).
/Zvika
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: "saving" tapes (or management's ideas...)
> Author: zvika (zvika AT AESERV.TECHNION.AC DOT IL) at unix,mime
> Date: 1/26/99 12:59 AM
>
>
> Dwight,
>
> Thanks for your analysis. The problem however, is that I cannot know
> beforehand
> which files would be doomed for non-backup, and these files are scattered
> all over the users' filesystems. It is perfectly possible (and this is the
> way it probably will be) that in a directory some files will be still in the
> normal backup, and others (old ones) to be non-backed up, so wildcarding and
> doamins are of little (if any) help. In addition, what would happen once a
> file
> from the "non-backup" is changed and should be backed up ?
>
> Regards,
> /Zvika
|