ADSM-L

Re: file inactive after restore

1994-10-18 13:59:33
Subject: Re: file inactive after restore
From: Paul Zarnowski <VKM AT CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL DOT EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:59:33 EDT
On Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:14:47 +0100 Pieter Groen said:
>I have a DOS client and a VM server.
>
>I had a file which was marked inactive on the server, because it was
>deleted at my workstation. So I restored it. After succesfull completion
>I expected it to be active again, but it was still inactive.
>At a new incremental backup it was backed up again, so I had two
>identical versions on the server, one active and one inactive.
>That is a lot of work for nearly nothing and twice as much disk space
>for the file on the server as was necessary.
>
>In my opinion the server should just change the status from 'inactive'
>into 'active' after succesfull completion of the restore.
>
>Greetings,
>Pieter

Pieter,

I don't know if I agree that the file status should be changed to 'active'
after the restore, but it surely would be nice if ADSM were smart enough
not to backup the file again during the next incremental backup and simply
change its status to active then.

This reminds me of an enhancement request that I've been wanting for awhile,
and which some other products seem to have.  The enhancement is for ADSM to
not keep multiple copies of the same, exact, file.  Many of our users have
the same set of system and application files on their workstations, and for
a variety of reasons they want to back them all up.  It would be nice if ADSM
were smart enough to detect that they were the same file, and only store one
copy of that file on the ADSM server (along with a reference count).  I
realize that this might complicate the server somewhat, especially regarding
such things as colocation policies, but the benefits would be also be
significant (IMHO).  I would say 50% or more of the files on a typical
workstation are operating system or application code, which will be identical
to other workstations.  The storage savings would be substantial.

..Paul
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>