Networker

Re: [Networker] Changing Saveset Expiration

2003-07-30 14:04:02
Subject: Re: [Networker] Changing Saveset Expiration
From: Patrick Terry <pterry AT LEGATO DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:02:31 -0700
Certainly.  But first, a correction.  The correct ID should be LGTpa53955
(my original post had a typo).
The original change was made to address an issue in that nsrmm -w can change
browse policy for recoverable saveset without entries in the on-line index.
Some customers were assuming that this operation would bring back deleted
entries from the on-line index, which is not the case. The fix would prevent
this occurance and issue the warning as described in the original question.
That is the behavior in 7.0.


The fix is not a reversal, but a refinement.  It will still prevent the
above and issue a warning, but it will allow the change of browse time to
happen for other recoverable savesets as long as the new browse time is
*less* than the original-browse-time
of the saveset.  This has the desired behavior of allowing the user to
change the browse time of a recoverable saveset as long as its lower than
the original browse-time of the saveset


Cheers
Patrick Terry
LEGATO Systems, Inc
Senior Technical Marketing Engineer
LCNS, LEGATO Certified NetWorker(r) Specialist




-----Original Message-----
From: Davina Treiber [mailto:Treiber AT HOTPOP DOT COM]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:54 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Changing Saveset Expiration
Importance: Low


Patrick Terry wrote:
> Jeffrey,
> Please contact tech support on this and refer to LGTpa53995.  There
> was a deliberate change made in 7.0 to prevent the change of
> non-browsable savesets (i.e. those that were already out of the client
> file index, but still in the media database).
>
> LGTpa53995 has a hot fix to return the behaviour to that which you
> experienced in the 6.x release, that support should be able to provide
> you. I believe 7.1 will also have that fix.
>

Patrick,

Can you tell us why the change in functionality was made, and why it was
thought to be better? Can you also tell us why it was decided to do a U-turn
on this and return to the original behaviour? Is it just that Legato
Engineering's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? :-)

I understand that you obviously can't change the browse time when it's
already passed, but you can still the retention time. If you were writing a
script to modify these, you'd probably just use the -w and the -e parameters
on the nsrmm command. Maybe a warning would be sensible here, but it
shouldn't make the command fail, it should change the retention date but
leave the browse unchanged.

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email to
listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can also view
and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

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