Networker

Re: [Networker] User file deletions between incrementals

2009-10-28 18:03:18
Subject: Re: [Networker] User file deletions between incrementals
From: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:59:06 -0400
HORWITZ, STANLEY R. wrote:
On 10 28, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Andi Weiderpass wrote:

Does anyone now how or if Networker tracks file deletions between
incrementals?

I have Networker clients installed on several Windows servers and I have
incrementals scheduled during the weekdays and fulls on the weekends.
Let's say a user deletes a file (intentionally) on a Tuesday and I have a system crash on Friday. To recover, I'll need to start with the full from the previous weekend which will restore the deleted file. As I continure to recover from the incrementals will the file be removed, at some point,
before I am all done?

Intentionally deleted files will be recovered. In fact, you could conceivably restore more data then your client has capacity to hold if just prior to the system crash, its disk was close to its capacity and someone intentionally deleted some files and created some other files. I am referring to standard files, not databases. I am not sure what happens with a database, but I suspect a similar situation would occur.

Hmm ... I was always under the impression that this was not the case, at least not with a browsable recover. I thought the whole point of a browse recover was that NW was supposed to be able to rebuild the directory, or file system, exactly the way it last appeared, so it ought to remove deleted files since the deletion of files gets updated in the client index, assuming, of course, that they were ever backed up. You can see this when you change browse times from the client. If the file was backed up today, and tomorrow it's deleted then the running nwrecover after the next backup should show that it's gone, but browsing back to the day before should show it there.

On the other hand, save set recover would not do that, so if multiple instances were being recovered, they would just keep adding or overwriting as the case may be since this makes no use of the client index.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I thought. Then again, seems almost everything I've thought lately has turned out to be wrong. Sigh ...


To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type 
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request 
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the 
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER



--
George Sinclair
Voice: (301) 713-3284 x210
- The preceding message is personal and does not reflect any official or unofficial position of the United States Department of Commerce -
- Any opinions expressed in this message are NOT those of the US Govt. -

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type 
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request 
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the 
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER