Well, I, too, dicovered that if I ran nwrecover and simply specified the
path, then I could get it to show up, but in at least one case, it did
not. It seems that incrementals do not cause this affect, but a full
will, unless, of course, you know to specify the full path as you
suggested. However, as I said, in one case even this did not work, but
when I used the null, it did. I misspoke in in my original e-mail. What
I rally meant to ask was this:
Would it be better for the directive to read:
<< /raid >>
null: dir1
null: dir2
null: dir3
OR instead read:
<< /raid/dir1 >>
+null: .?* *
<< /raid/dir2 >>
+null: .?* *
<< /raid/dir3 >>
+null: .?* *
I'm kind of paranoid about not being able to see things later (recover
or nwrecover), so I'm thinking I might need the second choice, but I'm
wondering if the first one would be good enough. I'm just curious if the
absence of the '+' would preclude me from accessing files files deeper
down when doing a recover or nwrecover?
George
Andrew McGeorge wrote:
>
> 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.
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
