Hi Al,
I was confused, too (that's what happens when I haven't looked at this
stuff for a while). But you must have not received my other post, where I
flip-flopped yet again (you'd think I was running for political office!).
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.eyebm DOT com (change eye to i to reply)
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Al Narzisi <anarzisi AT COMCAST DOT NET>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
08/09/2002 13:37
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Incremental Backup (full/partial)
Andy,
Now I am confused because an incremental by date just looks at the date of
the last full incremental compared to the date of the copied file. The
copied file retains the original date and if the date is older than the
date
of the last fill incremental it will not be backed up (even if it is new).
There is no query of the server to see if the file exists as a backup. So
I
think your original statement is correct?
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Raibeck" <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Incremental Backup (full/partial)
> Whoooops, you really didn't see me say this:
>
> >>
> For example, copying a file will produce a new file whose modification
> date/time matches the original file. If this date/time is lower than the
> date/time the file system was last backed up, then it won't be captured
by
> a Partial incremental.
> <<
>
> This is not true, the copy would be backed up because it is new. But the
> other discussion about Partial vs. Full incremental still stands.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> 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.eyebm DOT com (change eye to i to reply)
>
> The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
> The command line is your friend.
> "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> 08/09/2002 13:05
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Incremental Backup (full/partial)
>
>
>
> I think with COPYMODE, you are talking about how to get a complete
backup
> of the file system regardless of whether the files have changed, versus
a
> backup of changed files only. But Ken is talking about what we call
"Full
> incremental" versus "Partial incremental", which is different (and yes,
> the terminology can be quite confusing).
>
> "Full incremental" is a regular incremental backup with TSM, where the
> client queries the server for information about existing active backup
> versions, then traverses the client file systems, comparing each file's
> current attributes with the attributes of that file from the server
> information. If any of the attributes are different, then the file is
> considered to have changed, and it is eligible for backup.
>
> "Partial incremental" is another term for "incremental by date". In this
> case, TSM just checks the date/time that the file system was last backed
> up. Then it traverses the client file sysem and checks each file's
> modification date/time. If the file's current modification date/time is
> greater than the date/time the file system was last backed up, then the
> file is eligible for backup.
>
> The difference is that Full incremental is more thorough in checking for
> changed files, at the expense of time. For large file systems, it can
take
> a relatively long time to get query information back from the server;
plus
> the client is doing more file attribute comparisons, which can also take
> longer. Partial incremental is faster, but because it's checks for
changed
> files are less stringent, it may not capture all changed files. For
> example, copying a file will produce a new file whose modification
> date/time matches the original file. If this date/time is lower than the
> date/time the file system was last backed up, then it won't be captured
by
> a Partial incremental. Also, Partial incremental doesn't expire deleted
> files. So as a rule, Partial incremental is recommended only if you are
> truly constrained on time for doing a Full incremental; and even then,
you
> should schedule a Full incremental periodically (like once a week).
>
> 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.eyebm DOT com (change eye to i to reply)
>
> The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
> The command line is your friend.
> "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
>
>
>
> Edgardo Moso <edgardo_moso AT KINDREDHEALTHCARE DOT COM>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> 08/09/2002 12:35
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Incremental Backup (full/partial)
>
>
>
> Set copy mode parameter in the copy group to absolute for full and
> modified
> for incremental backup.
>
> For partial incremental: see manual ( ex. by date, etc...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: KEN HORACEK <KHORACEK AT INCSYSTEM DOT COM> on 08/09/2002 01:36 PM
>
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:
> Subject: Incremental Backup (full/partial)
>
> Hi fellow listers,
>
> So here I am, "Reading the Fine Manual", and it sez; an Incremental
Backup
> can either be "full" or "partial"..
> How can I tell if my backup(s) are requesting a "full" or "partial"
> backup?
>
> Ken
> khoracek AT incsystem DOT com
>
|
