George,
I don't think that you are correct about the next full backup wiping out the
indexes for dir1,2,3. It just looks that way when you try to recover. When
recovering use the command line and specify the whole path in one go.
In other words if you try the following:
cd /raid
cd dir1
to get to your directory, it will look as if your piecemeal backup is
missing. But if you specify the path like this:
cd /raid/dir1
the piecemeal backup will show up. It's because in this case NetWorker is
reading the "/" between "raid" and "dir1" as a normal (escaped) character,
rather than as a meta character. I had no end of grief with this when I
tried the same thing.
I think that you will find that it doesn't matter whether you use skip or
null, the result will be the same.
regards
Andrew McGeorge
-----Original Message-----
From: George Sinclair [mailto:George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV]
Sent: 1 April 2003 11:37:AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] The use of null in unix directives?
Hi,
I have a Unix client, and a situation where I need to preserve index
entries for all the files under all its file systems. I have two
instances of this client as each uses a different schedule and group.
The first instance lists only three pathnames:
/raid/dir1
/raid/dir2
/raid/dir3
for savesets, and uses the "Unix standard directives". The other
instance lists 'All' but uses a custom directive to skip these three
pathnames. The problem is that I need this second client instance to
grab everything else under /raid like dir4, 5, or whatever. I know that
if I use skip or +skip, as opposed to null or +null, then the next full
will wipe out the previous index entries for dir1, 2 and 3 that the
first instance created, and I need to keep everything. I guess I'm
confused about which of the following directives to employ for client
instance 2 so the previous index entries will not be overwritten:
<< /raid >>
null: dir1
null: dir2
null: dir3
or
<< /raid >>
+null: dir1
+null: dir2
+null: dir3
If I don't use '+' will I only see dir1, 2 and 3 but no files
underneath? Will it be necessary for me to use the '+' in order to see
all the entries for files nestled how ever far down under these
locations?
Thanks.
George
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
========================================================================================
This email message and attachments are confidential to our organisation and
subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error, please
advise the sender immediately and destroy the message and any attachments. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, distribution,
amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of
this message or attachments is prohibited. You can read our Privacy Policy
here: <http://www.asbbank.co.nz/privacystatement.stm>
=========================================================================================
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
