The dsm.opt file is not read from top to bottom, but INCLUDE and EXCLUDE
statements are *processed* in bottom-up order. For each file that TSM
looks at, it starts comparing the patterns in the include/exclude
statements, and stops comparing when a match is found. If all
include/exclude patterns don't match, then the file is backed up (i.e. TSM
behaves as if there were an implicit "include *:\...\*" at the top of the
include/exclude list.

Consider the following:

1)
   include c:\mydir\my.critical.file
   exclude c:\mydir\...\*

versus:

2)
   exclude c:\mydir\...\*
   include c:\mydir\my.critical.file

In #1, since processing is bottom-up, when TSM encounters file
c:\mydir\my.critical.file, it will match the "exclude" pattern, and thus
not be backed up.

In #2, when TSM encounters file c:\mydir\my.critical.file, it matches the
"include" pattern, and is thus backed up. On the other hand, when TSM
encounters c:\mydir\some.other.file, it doesn't match the "include"
pattern, but does match the "exclude" pattern, so that file is not backed
up. When TSM encounters c:\yourdir\some.file, none of the patterns are
matched, so the file is backed up.

EXCLUDE.DIR is a bit different: these are always matched first, regardless
of placement in the include/exclude list. Thus the following are
equivalent:

   exclude.dir c:\mydir
   include c:\mydir\my.critical.file

and

   include c:\mydir\my.critical.file
   exclude.dir c:\mydir

In both of these cases, my.critical.file is never backed up because
"exclude.dir" is processed first, regardless of physical position in the
include/exclude list.

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.

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 09/01/2004
11:07:44:

> This may be a strange question, but...we just had a TSM consultant here
and
> he said that the dsm.opt file is read from bottom to top.  Is this
correct?
> Does placement of the statements matter either way?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
Andrew Raibeck
> Sent: September 01, 2004 1:48 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Include/Exclude Question
>
>
> > As it relates to system objects would not the first statement exclude
> them
> > and the second pick them up? I'm not sure I saw that addressed but
> > maybe
> the
> > original poster might also clarify if they need them.
>
> Kelli indicated that the client system is NT 4.0, where the system
objects
> issue does not apply (use the BACKUPREGISTRY YES | NO option instead).
For
> W2K and up, you can modify the DOMAIN statement as appropriate to
accommodate
> your system object needs.
>
> 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.
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 09/01/2004
> 09:52:33:
>
> > >But in my opinion, the *best* approach is to not bother with exclude
> > >to skip drives, but instead use the DOMAIN statement, which will
> > >simplify include/exclude AND avoid looking at the drives at all. A
> > >couple of
> > >methods:
> > >
> > >   domain c: g: j:
> > >
> > >      or
> > >
> > >   domain -d: -e: -f: -h: -i: -k: -l: -m:
> > >
> > >The first version is easier to code. However, if drive P: is later
> added
> > >and you want to back it up, you will need to remember to modify the
> DOMAIN
> > >statement to ensure it gets backed up. On the other hand, if you
> > >don't want drive P: backed up, then the second version of the domain
> statement
> > >would have to be updated. Note that the second version covers your
> point
> > >re: backing up too much rather than too little.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Andy
> >
> > As it relates to system objects would not the first statement exclude
> them
> > and the second pick them up? I'm not sure I saw that addressed but
> > maybe
> the
> > original poster might also clarify if they need them.
> >
> > Geoff Gill
> > TSM Administrator
> > NT Systems Support Engineer
> > SAIC
> > E-Mail:   gillg AT saic DOT com
> > Phone:  (858) 826-4062
> > Pager:   (877) 854-0975