ADSM-L

Re: -VOLinformation on Novell clients...

1996-06-07 07:21:40
Subject: Re: -VOLinformation on Novell clients...
From: "Pittson, Timothy ,Corp,US" <tpittson AT HIMAIL.HCC DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 07:21:40 -0400
You don't need to add -volinfo to an incremental backup - volume
restriction and trustee directory assignments are picked up
automatically on an incremental.  You shouldn't have to restore a volume
twice to have the rights restored provided your
bindery or NDS are in place prior to restoring the volume(s).

Tim Pittson
tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com
>----------
>From:  Dwight Cook[SMTP:decook AT AMOCO DOT COM]
>Sent:  Thursday, June 06, 1996 5:38 PM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list ADSM-L
>Subject:       -VOLinformation on Novell clients...
>
>     Stupid question but I've got to ask....
>
>     -VOLinformation
>     Backs up NetWare volume restrictions such as volume or disk space
>     restrictions and trustee directory assignments for the root
>directory
>     of a volume.
>
>     For example, to back up volume restrictions for the SYS: volume,
>     enter:  load dsmc sel -VOL  SYS:
>
>
>     I read this as : If I want volume restrictions I must schedule a
>     backup of just that.
>
>     CAN I GET AWAY WITH PUTTING -VOL ON A STRAIGHT INCREMENTAL
>SCHEDULED
>     EVENT AND HAVE IT PICK UP ALL CHANGED FILES AND ALL VOLUME
>     RESTRICTIONS...
>     WOULD THE EXAMPLE FROM THE MANUAL (LISTED ABOVE) BACKUP ALL THE
>FILES
>     ON THE SYS: VOLUME ALSO ? ? ?
>
>     You might have the doc folks add a one line note that explains the
>     full scope of the example... or key word of ONLY or AND DATASETS
>     or am I once again missing something and since there is no SYS:\*
>and
>     or -subdir=y does that eliminate the inclusion of files...?
>
>
>     One quick other question... In the novell environment when doing a
>vol
>     restore each directory gets rights... but when doing a dir restore
>and
>     the directory does not exist you have to restore it twice to get
>the
>     rights...     IS THIS RIGHT (sorry for the choice of words...)
>
>
>     later
>          Dwight
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>