|
Re: [Networker] discrepancy in sizes reported
2012-09-24 12:29:48
On 2012-09-24 11:44, Frank Swasey wrote:
On 9/24/12 10:56 AM, Bill Wilkie wrote:
Frank: Could it be that one statistic is reflecting the size after some form of
data compression whereas the other reflects the true size? Just a thought. Bill
I see no evidence in the save group report that any nsr.dir files were found
and processed for
this save set, so I believe the only compression involved is the hardware
compression taking
place in the LTO4 tape drives - which NetWorker is not able to see and report
on.
So, I don't think compression is playing any role in this issue.
Several questions: Is this a full or an incremental? If it's an
incremental, are you sure all the affected files, whose total size
should add up to what you'd expect, have in fact had their mtimes
updated since the last backup? What does the previous media database
entry report for the save set? Or maybe this is the first time you've
tried to run a back up against it?
I would check server side directives and client side directives. Is it
possible that a bunch of data was previously being skipped, someone
renamed a directory, and the affected data hasn't had its mtimes updates
since the directive was last in use? Is the 'backup renamed directories'
option checked?
Next, how about targeting a smaller subset of the data, as a test, like
maybe just a few hundred MB, and see what a savegrp estimate reports for
a full, maybe change the mtimes for everything under that test directory
and then see what an incremental reports, before even running the backup.
Also, is indexing enabled for the pool? If so, what does nsrinfo report?
George
Thanks,
Frank
--
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. -
|
|
|
