<<How can the index contain information if no group has run?>>
Index contains information of ALL files for ALL saves performed since now...
So, if you run a savegroup to estimate the totalsize, networker can tell you
the minimum size of the index (current size) + index entries for the files that
will be saved.
<<Doesn't the index get updated while a group is running?>>
The index is updated by the process nsraddindex spawned during save.
<<so, then is the savegrp estimate reporting how much it would be adding to the
index? Is it interpolating that amount based on the expected size of the
incremental backup for the save set(s)?>>
Index size does not grow as the same trend than savesets, but only by the
number of files contained in it, index contains the name of the file, some date
and time and pointers to media database, in order to find on which volume (with
the ssid) the file is saved.
So if you have an index size of 130 MB, and you save only one file, the total
size of index will be about 130 MB + less than 1K, an -E (or -n) will estimate
the index size to be save at about 130 MB.
Denis
----- "George Sinclair" <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> a écrit :
> Denis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Networker always saves index at level 9 (or full), in order to get
> the whole index everytime.
> >
> > If you want to not save index, check the 'no index save' in the
> group properties running that client instance, but consider to perform
> a savegrp -O -c clientname, or you would be forced to do some scanner
> -i after a NW crash...
>
> That makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is why the command:
>
> savegrp -n -l incr groupname
>
> would report a non-zero value for the index? How can the index contain
>
> information if no group has run? Doesn't the index get updated while a
>
> group is running? If so, then the changed entries should get backed up
>
> with that group, assuming, as you said, that you have 'save index'
> turned on. If you do, then nothing more has changed in the index since
>
> the next time you run a group, right? so, then is the savegrp
> estimate reporting how much it would be adding to the index? Is it
> interpolating that amount based on the expected size of the
> incremental
> backup for the save set(s)?
>
> George
>
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > ----- "George Sinclair" <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> a écrit :
> >
> >> Usually when I run a backup estimate as:
> >>
> >> savegrp -n -l incr groupname
> >>
> >> It usually always reports some greater than zero value for the
> >> client's
> >> index, never mind the save sets. What seems odd to me is why would
> it
> >>
> >> report a non-zero value for the index itself if nothing in the
> index
> >> has
> >> changed since the last level 9?
> >>
> >> Granted, data has changed under the affected save set, but the
> only
> >> way
> >> the index would change would be if a backup ran, and then the
> index
> >> gets
> >> updated. We have multiple NSR client resources for the same
> client,
> >> each
> >> being in a different group. Every group also saves the index. After
>
> >> running incrementals for all the groups 1, 2, 3, ... and then
> adding
> >> some new data to the save set for group 1 and then running only an
>
> >> incremental estimate on group 1, it reports what I would expect
> for
> >> the
> >> save set but it also reports a non-zero value for the index. How
> could
> >>
> >> it report that the index is still non-zero?
> >>
> >> The only thing I can see is that it's taking the expected size of
> the
> >>
> >> incremental for the save set itself and factoring in how much of an
>
> >> index change this would result in and reporting that, maybe ???
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >> --
> >> George Sinclair
> >> Voice: (301) 713-3284 x210
> >> - The preceding message is personal and does not reflect any
> official
> >> or
> >> unofficial position of the United States Department of Commerce -
> >> - Any opinions expressed in this message are NOT those of the US
> Govt.
> >> -
> >>
> >> To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu
> and
> >> type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
> >> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems
> with
> >> this list. You can access the archives at
> >> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
> >> via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
> >
> > To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu
> and type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with
> this list. You can access the archives at
> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
> > via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
> >
>
>
> --
> George Sinclair
> Voice: (301) 713-3284 x210
> - The preceding message is personal and does not reflect any official
> or
> unofficial position of the United States Department of Commerce -
> - Any opinions expressed in this message are NOT those of the US Govt.
> -
>
> To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
> type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with
> this list. You can access the archives at
> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
> via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
|
