Oh yeah...TIR
I've seen the error message in the "all log reports" that complains
about the TIR folder and then states that since there is a problem with
the TIR folder that it will do a FULL backup :-(

>>> Wayne T Smith <wts at maine.edu> 8/16/2006 4:27 PM >>>

We've seen the much larger than expected cumulative incremental on 
several machines, and not limited to Windows. 

For each one that I've tried, putting them in a policy that does *not*

collect TIR information works around the problem (v5.1).

I'll pass on the "images nearing expiration and with no copy 2"
question.

cheers, wayne

Veritas Netbackup wrote, in part,  on 8/16/2006 2:59 PM:
> We backup a CIFS network drive, which stores scanned images on a 
> windows machine, to which it is mapped.
>
> Since Images are'nt modified they are just read. The application team

> claims that the drive gets updated with 4 GB of data everyday.
>
> We have used a cumulative Incremental backup type and it is observed
that
>
> SUN -> Full backup -> 120 GB
>
> Mon -> cumulative incremental backup -> 74 GB
>
> Tue -> cumulative incremental 76 GB
>
> Why is the backup so huge when we have specified only cumulative 
> incremental?? The backup size shd have been approx 8 GB by TUE.
>
> Another question is whether we can identfiy images about to expire on

> a particular day??? I need to identify images which have'nt been 
> vaulted and which are nearing expiry.
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20060816/02e55d2a/attachment.html