Hi there,
You mentioned "PITDATE" options on the backup sets... Has anyone hear if
this is actually being done in the near future? I was shocked to see that
point-in-time options were not supported in the first place and I was
planning on submitting it as a feature request. I can't understand why you
shouldn't be able to generate a backup set using essentially any of the
non-interactive options that you can use from the client side.
Thanks,
Scott.
At 07:41 PM 12/14/99 -0000, you wrote:
>Hi Kelly
>
>Mmm not possible when you have 400 machines backing up to one ADSM server
>and they all want a end of month archive. Current implementation of
>backupsets (aka 'instant archives' - name is awfully misleading) requires
>the backupset generation to finish before the next incremental backup. Also
>uses loads more tapes too. Backupsets do have their place though - will be
>much more usable when they put a pitdate and pittime parameter on the
>command though.
>
>With the proposed method there is absolutely no additional processing -
>except perhaps for expiration - maybe we don't want that tinkered with for a
>while after it being broke for all of version 3 until 3.1.2.42.
>
>Regards
>Alan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Kelly J. Lipp <lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM>
>To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 4:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Wishlist [was: Re: Archives]
>
>
>> I've not been following this thread, but what about Instant Archive
>instead
>> of actually moving the data again?
>>
>> Kelly J. Lipp
>> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
>> PO Box 51313
>> Colorado Springs CO 80919
>> (719)531-5926
>> Fax: (719)260-5991
>> www.storsol.com
>> lipp AT storsol DOT com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf
>> Of
>> Alan R. White
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 3:04 PM
>> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>> Subject: Wishlist [was: Re: Archives]
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cool if the policy copygroups contained additional
>facilities
>> for specifying that a revision of a file which corresponds to a weekly or
>> monthly 'view' of a filesystem should be retained for an alternative
>length
>> of time? Expiration would have to get more intelligent (groans) so it
>> doesn't expire these 'views' of data until the specified time. Reclamation
>> etc would work as normal.
>>
>> I'm going to submit this as a request through the usual channels. This
>means
>> it won't get done unless everybody hits them with it. Anyone else think
>this
>> change would be a good idea?
>>
>> Regards
>> Alan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Franco Martini <franco.martini AT RAIFFEISEN DOT CH>
>> To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 2:18 PM
>> Subject: Archives
>>
>>
>> > Hi
>> > We have the policy to make every week an archive and every
>> > month one (different management classes).
>> > So we decided to make every saturday morning a week archive
>> > and every first day of the month a monthly backup.
>> >
>> > Now we have the problem that sometimes it happens that saturday is the
>> first of
>> > a month
>> > and so ADSM makes two archives of the same data. :(
>> > Thats a waste of network bandwith and Tapes.
>> >
>> > Is there a possibility to tell the ADSM Server if he makes a monthly
>> archive
>> > we dont want a weekly archive?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Franco
>> >
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Franco Martini / Systemtechnik Tel. : +41 71 225 8779
>> > Schweizer Verband der Raiffeisenbanken Fax : +41 71 225 8912
>> > Wassergasse 24 Email :
>franco.martini AT raiffeisen DOT ch
>> > 9001 St. Gallen
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Scott McCambly
AIX/NetView/ADSM Specialist - Unopsys Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
(613)799-9269
|
