ADSM-L

Re: "saving" tapes (or management's ideas...)

1999-01-27 02:36:31
Subject: Re: "saving" tapes (or management's ideas...)
From: Zvi Bar-Deroma <zvika AT AESERV.TECHNION.AC DOT IL>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:36:31 +0200
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>