Hi Tim,
Yes, your testing is correct. Since the "file excluded" message (ANS1115W)
is issued for selective and archive, you will get the rc 4; and since
ANS1115W is not issued for incremental backup, the rc will be 0 (barring
any other problems).
Historically TSM has always worked this way, with the "file excluded"
message being issued for selective and archive commands, but not
incremental backup. The rationale is a bit subjective, but a lot of
thought did go into it.
The most common substantive client operation is almost certainly
incremental backup. Since it is implicitly understood (or should be
understood) that incremental backup will not back up excluded files, we
don't bother to issue the warning message.
The assumption we make behind selective backup is that you want to back
up *all* files in the file specification (i.e. you have specifically
targeted, or "selected" those files for backup). Thus any failure to back
up any of the files in the file spec is flagged with the warning message.
Of course, it is only assumption, and you know what happens when you
assume.... but be that as it may, we have to assume *something*, one way
or the other, so to be safe, we issue the warning message letting you know
that certain files were not backed up. The argument for archive is
similar, and maybe even more important, since archives are usually for
longer retention periods: we make the assumption that if you are targeting
files for long-term retention, you want them. All of them. Admittedly,
this falls a bit flat if you have explicitly excluded the files with
exclude.archive, clearly stating intent. On the other hand, if we issued
no warning message, then less experienced customers who really want the
files archived, but forgot about the excluded files, might not be happy,
either. So I think the messages themselves are appropriate, albeit
unnecessary for experienced customers.
With that said, you make a fair point, and I think it merits some thought.
Essentially, I think the issue comes down to whether we want to further
break down "skipped" files into two categories:
files that are skipped unintentionally
files that are skipped by intent (i.e. via exclude)
with two different return codes.
Hopefully you understand that on this forum, I can not commit to making
any such a change. Also, keep in mind that we deliberately set out to keep
the number of return codes small so that they could be easily understood
and managed; though in theory, there is no reason that we couldn't have
additional codes, especially when it makes sense (as is possible here). So
please consider this issue noted.
Thanks,
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.
"Rushforth, Tim" <TRushfor AT CITY.WINNIPEG.MB DOT CA>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
04/12/2002 14:28
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes
I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question on the
rc=4 with excluded files:
The doc specifies:
rc=4: The operation completed successfully, but some files were not
processed.
There were no other errors or warnings. This return code is very common.
Files are not processed for various reasons. The most common reasons are:
The file is in an exclude list..
The file was in use by another application and could not be accessed by
the
client
The file changed during the operation to an extent prohibited by the
copy
serialization attribute.
I have a directory with one subdirectory exluded via exclude and
exlude.archive.
For an incremental of the directory I get rc=0, for an archive or a
selective backup I get rc=4.
I would rather see a different return code for an excluded file (I'm
excluding it so I expect it to not get backed up!). I think a file that
is
missed because it is open or changed is much more serious than a file that
is excluded.
Why are the return codes inconsistent between incrementals and selective
or
archives?
Or was my testing incorrect?
Thanks,
Tim Rushforth
City of Winnipeg
|
