Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+include\/exclude\s+pattern\s+matching\s+\*\.\*\s+vs\s+\*\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+include\/exclude\s+pattern\s+matching\s+\*\.\*\s+vs\s+\*\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:34:30 -0400; Is there a real difference in an INCLUDE statement using \*.* vs \* ? We are troubleshooting a backup problem (nothing is being backed up) and the OBJECTS option on the schedule says INCLUDE \\server; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00184.html (12,262 bytes)
2. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:44:08 -0400; Hi Zoltan, Yes, there is a difference. Don't confuse old-style DOS wildcard matching with TSM wildcard matching. '*' matches zero more more characters. Thus: *.* will match file names that have a '.'; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00185.html (14,236 bytes)
3. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Ron Delaware <ron.delaware AT US.IBM DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:20:10 -0500; Zoltan, Using your example of \\server\folder\*.* I make the assumption that you want to backup the folder directory and its subdirectories. The correct way to do that is: include "\\server\c$\folder; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00188.html (13,297 bytes)
4. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:36:42 -0400; Thanks for the suggestion. This was simple an error on the part of a non-TSM administrator. They should have left it as \\server\folder like the others of similar configuration. They have learned the; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00190.html (14,800 bytes)
5. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:53:40 -0400; Does the OBJECTS value on the schedule override an INCLUDE in the dsm.opt? -- Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zf; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00191.html (15,698 bytes)
6. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:05:46 -0400; Hi Zoltan, I don't quite understand the question. If the file is INCLUDEd, how would OBJECTS change this? In looking over your initial post again (I read it too quickly the first time), something doe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00194.html (20,665 bytes)
7. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:19:04 -0400; To clarify: This "head" server is used to backup >40 CIFS shares. Each share has its own node and thus their own schedule (gives each department control over their backups and restores). The schedule; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00195.html (24,090 bytes)
8. Re: [ADSM-L] include/exclude pattern matching *.* vs * (score: 1): Author: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:49:13 -0400; Based on what you've provided, the question has no real meaning, as there is nothing to override. It doesn't matter. The INCLUDE is moot. Now if you were asking whether OBJECTS overrides an EXCLUDE; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2013-04/msg00198.html (29,884 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]