> 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