In regard to: [Networker] Directive to exclude a single directory,...:
The same directive as... ? People that see this post via a mailing list,
which is quite a lot of us, can't see any thread history that you don't
specifically quote in your post, so we don't know what you're referring
to.
Sorry about that. I view e-mails in conversation threads with
Thunderbird or Mac Mail, so that didn't occur to me. The topic is
excluding specific directories with directives in .nsr files. In my
case it's /system/object and /system/contract on Solaris machines.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
Where did you read the two issues that you're quoting? I would really
like to take a look at the source, because I believe the first issue
is completely not true, and the second one is mostly incorrect as well.
Quote:
1. Directives in .nsr files cannot be used when the saveset is "all" .
If .nsr files are to be used, it is necessary to specify individual
savesets instead of "all"
2. Directives in .nsr files override the Unix Standard Directives. If
.nsr files are to be used, it is necessary to cut-and-paste the Unix
Standard Directives into an .nsr file
It turns out I missed a small but important detail with regard to item
1: It is only true on Windows according to the source, which is here...
http://nsrd.info/blog/2009/10/20/quibbles-%E2%80%93%C2%A0directive-management-redux/
Thanks for including the source. You did indeed misunderstand several
parts of what Preston is (I think) saying.
First, this is NOT specific to Windows -- it's specific to "special"
savesets. It's just that Windows tends to be where you find these most
frequently, and it's what Preston was focused on in his blog post. There
*may* very well be special savesets on UNIX or Linux systems, where this
would also be true -- something like the NMO saveset for backing up NMC
or perhaps one of the modules for backing up e.g. some other type of
database. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but that doesn't
mean they don't exist.
The other salient point to note is that when you use the "All" saveset on
a Windows client, it includes these special savesets. On Linux and UNIX
clients, that's often not the case. All for Linux and UNIX systems
generally means something along the lines of "all local filesystems that
are NOT of type (X, Y, Z, ...)". What types of filesystems that are part
of the set (X, Y, Z, ...) varies by client and version of NetWorker.
In your particular case, the issue is that although /system is a
pseudo-filesystem that's "special" to the OS, it is NOT a special saveset
as far as your version of the client is concerned. The client just thinks
it's part of the standard OS. This happens whenever an OS vendor adds
some new type of pseudo-filesystem. It happened early on with /proc on
Linux, it happened more recently with /sys on Linux, and it happened with
/system on Solaris.
In most cases, the client software is updated so that it knows to treat
the pseudo-filesystems differently. In other words, the pseudo-filesystem
for /system is added to the set (X, Y, Z, ...) of filesystems that
NetWorker knows to handle differently (often meaning: skip). As long as
you're running a recent enough version of the client software, NetWorker
knows to automatically skip /proc and /sys on Linux systems, since those
are dynamic.
My advice: try installing the latest version of the client software. It
will probably do the right thing for your Solaris clients, with no
directive tweaking needed.
The second point above is from here...
http://nsrd.info/blog/2009/09/03/quibbles-directive-management/
AFAICT, nowhere in that post does Preston say anything like what you've
identified as #2. Preston is saying that there's no facility in NetWorker
to include one directive inside of another. He doesn't specifically say
it in his blog post, but his focus appears to be exclusively on "server
side directives".
Things put in a .nsr file on a client are called "client side directives".
They can and do augment any server side directives that are assigned to
the client.
In fact, you can do exactly what Preston wants to do IF you're willing to
use *both* server side directives AND client side directives, but a lot
of people would be opposed to that, and I'm guessing Preston is deeply in
that camp.
Everything Preston said is true (and I agree 100% that having a
support for an "include" feature or some kind of "directive union" for
server side directives would really be useful), but his focus was really
on server-side management of directives. You read a bit too much into
what he was saying.
BTW, Preston knows a tremendous amount about NetWorker, so reading his
blog is definitely a good way to learn about the product.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney AT ndsu DOT
edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
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
|
