ADSM-L

Re: Backup completion / BACKUP_END on network FileSpaces?

2004-04-08 12:36:58
Subject: Re: Backup completion / BACKUP_END on network FileSpaces?
From: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:36:17 -0600
Hi Richard,

I don't think include/exclude would really interfere with this. I am
focusing on the messages

04/07/2004 02:07:28 Successful incremental backup of '\\getback\q$\*'
04/08/2004 07:47:50 Successful incremental backup of '\\gwise99\gwise\*'

These indicate that somewhere along the line the file specification is
being made with the '\*' at the end of the file system name. Even if he
excluded every file in those file systems, a successful incremental backup
of \\getback\q$ should cause the file space last backup date to be
updated. However, since an incremental backup of \\getback\q$\* is not
considered a full incremental backup (because of the '\*' qualifier), it
doesn't get updated.

My money (all two cents of it!) says that somewhere there is a DOMAIN
statement or other file specification like this:

   \\getback\q$\*

as opposed to

   \\getback\q$

Regards,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[email protected]
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.



Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
04/08/2004 08:25
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc

Subject
Re: Backup completion / BACKUP_END on network FileSpaces?






>On both of these clients, the filespaces are included using a domain
>statement, and the backups are simply run with a schedule where
>action=incremental, without explicitly specifying any objects.

Ted - Does 'dsmc q inclexcl' show any "interference" with that intention?

  Richard Sims