ADSM-L

Re: Policy Domain & Include Statement Question

2004-01-12 06:02:17
Subject: Re: Policy Domain & Include Statement Question
From: Karel Bos <Karel.Bos AT NUON DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:59:33 +0100
Hi,

I think it is because default directories are bound to the management class
having the longest retention period.

Regards,

Karel


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Farren Minns [mailto:fminns AT WILEY.CO DOT UK]
Verzonden: maandag 12 januari 2004 11:49
Aan: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Onderwerp: Policy Domain & Include Statement Question


(I'm sending this again because it keeps getting returned telling me I have
already sent the same message. But I wrote this this morning for the very
first time, so that can't be. Thanks. Farren)

Hi All

Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7

I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all
sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the
following steps :-

1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy
domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as
follows :-

Policy Domain Name                STANDARD
Policy Set Name                STANDARD
Mgmt Class Name                RETDEL751
Copy Group Name                STANDARD
Versions Data Exists                3
Versions Data Deleted                1
Retain Extra Versions                180
Retain Only Version                750

Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed
up for 750 days.

2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works
fine.

3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include
statement. As follows :-

include /app/production/.../* retdel750

Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows
some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in
that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to
only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement.

Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and
doing something wrong)?

Many thanks in advance

Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd




****************************************************************************
*

This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or
organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any
attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this
message in error please notify the sender.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states otherwise.

Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your
own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage
arising out of any bug or virus infection.
****************************************************************************
*

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>