> Matt,
>
> This is a recognized requirement, though no delivery timeframe is
> available yet.
>
> Taking this up with you rmarketing rep is a good idea. The more people
> request it, the more likely it is to receive a higher priority.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Raibeck
> IBM Software Group
> Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
> Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
> The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
> The command line is your friend.
> "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
>
>
>
> "Matthew A. Bacchi" <mbacchi AT BTV.IBM DOT COM>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> 02/26/2002 15:18
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
>
>         To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Exclude SYSTEM_OBJECT redux
>
>
>
> Folks,
> We are apparently in the minority due to the fact that we don't want to
> backup
> the SYSTEM_OBJECT on Windows 2000 on our clients.  I have contacted Tivoli
> support and know that my only option currently is to use the DOMAIN
> statement
> in the dsm.opt file to control this.  Therefore I come to the community
> and
> ask what (if any) requests have you made of the developers for design
> changes concerning this topic.
>
> I know some developers frequent this list, and if any of them care to
> comment on this, I would love to have your input.  I plan on talking
> with Tivoli Marketing soon, asking for a design change to incorporate
> a feature that will allow me to exclude the SYSTEM_OBJECT; so maybe
> something like an option called EXCLUDE.SYSTEMOBJECT.  It is my
> opinion that this should be an option that could be set from a server
> client
> option set, so that each client dsm.opt file doesn't need to be
> modified.  This is a problem in my environment, as I have over 10,000
> clients total, and it's difficult to make changes that require user
> action.
>
> When I spoke with Tivoli support about my problem, he mentioned that
> when designing the capability to backup the system files, they were
> required to take an 'all or nothing' approach.  While this seems to be
> true, they make it quite difficult for the user to choose the
> 'nothing' route, much different from the philosophy TSM normally
> espouses.
>
> OK, thanks for listening.  I look forward to your comments.
>
> -Matt
>