If the client had to be recreated prior to the scanning, did you use the client 
id of the original client  that was backed up?  nsrinfo wouldn't work with a 
different client id.

Jee

Michael Leone <Michael.Leone AT PHA.PHILA DOT GOV> wrote:

>> Have you looked at the actual index structure itself before and after 
>> scanning? 
>
>No. There was no before scanning, as the client did not exist in this 
>media database before scanning. And those tapes were scanned ... probably 
>3-4 years ago now.
>
>> conventions that one would expect to see in an index? What happens if 
>> you run a subsequent check against the index, e.g. level 5 or 6?
>
>I have not. I will try that later. I don't expect it to help, frankly - 
>I've never actually seen running nsrck at a level of anything less that 
>-L7 help. :-)
>
>> Is it possible that the browse policy on the affected clients may need 
>> to be increased? 
>
>Browse, expiration and retention dates for this client and this saveset 
>are already 5 years in the future.
>
>> Is it possible that there's a difference in time zones (e.g. EDT versus 
>> UTC) or some such thing?
>
>Don't see how, as we've always ever just used the same timezone.
>
>> It would seem that if nsrinfo isn't reporting anything then unless 
>> you're running the command with the incorrect options or values (this 
>> happens to me sometimes where I accidentally use the ssid rather than 
>> the nsavetime value or some such thing) then there simply isn't anything 
>
>> in the index for that nsavetime value. 
>
>That's what I think, altho I can't quite see how, since nothing has 
>expired, and we're still within the retention period.
>
>> have recommended? Do you still have any of the older tapes around to run 
>
>> such a test?
>
>They have to be recalled from offsite, which - in my case - means a 
>request to my legal department so that I can retrieve tapes. (don't ask)
>
>I'll see if I can do that tomorrow or next week.
>
>Thanks.