|
Re: [Networker] Index question
2010-03-22 19:31:43
Denis wrote:
Hello,
Networker always saves index at level 9 (or full), in order to get the whole
index everytime.
If you want to not save index, check the 'no index save' in the group
properties running that client instance, but consider to perform a savegrp -O
-c clientname, or you would be forced to do some scanner -i after a NW crash...
That makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is why the command:
savegrp -n -l incr groupname
would report a non-zero value for the index? How can the index contain
information if no group has run? Doesn't the index get updated while a
group is running? If so, then the changed entries should get backed up
with that group, assuming, as you said, that you have 'save index'
turned on. If you do, then nothing more has changed in the index since
the next time you run a group, right? If so, then is the savegrp
estimate reporting how much it would be adding to the index? Is it
interpolating that amount based on the expected size of the incremental
backup for the save set(s)?
George
Denis
----- "George Sinclair" <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> a écrit :
Usually when I run a backup estimate as:
savegrp -n -l incr groupname
It usually always reports some greater than zero value for the
client's
index, never mind the save sets. What seems odd to me is why would it
report a non-zero value for the index itself if nothing in the index
has
changed since the last level 9?
Granted, data has changed under the affected save set, but the only
way
the index would change would be if a backup ran, and then the index
gets
updated. We have multiple NSR client resources for the same client,
each
being in a different group. Every group also saves the index. After
running incrementals for all the groups 1, 2, 3, ... and then adding
some new data to the save set for group 1 and then running only an
incremental estimate on group 1, it reports what I would expect for
the
save set but it also reports a non-zero value for the index. How could
it report that the index is still non-zero?
The only thing I can see is that it's taking the expected size of the
incremental for the save set itself and factoring in how much of an
index change this would result in and reporting that, maybe ???
George
--
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
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
|
|
|
