Does TSM backup the system object EXACTLY the way NTbackup does?? MS does provide documentation on DR to hardware other than the original on W2K using NTbackup. This would be beneficial in a true DR situation.
I have just begun my testing of this... -----Original Message----- From: Rushforth, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Assigning MGMT to SYSTEMOBJECT? The Redbook referenced is based on the 4.1.2 client. With this client you could not restore inactive copies of the system object. The 4.2 client does allow you to restore inactive copies of the system object (WoooHooo!). You can also assign a mgmtclass to specify different retentions for the system objects. So you could use this instead of doing the NT Backup of the System State. Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -----Original Message----- From: William Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Assigning MGMT to SYSTEMOBJECT? Going through the readme for the 4.2 client, I found the new option INCLUDE.SYSTEMOBJECT ALL <mgmtclass> to assign the systemobject to a management class. Also reading the Redbook "Deploying TSM in a Win2k Environment" which states that only 1 copy of the systemobject is kept by TSM. So, assigning a management class to the systemobject has what effect besides directing the data to a specific storage pool? At a client site we are considering implementing a PRESCHEDULECMD to run the NTBACKUP to backup the SYSTEMSTATE to a flat file and then manage that file with appropriate retention based on their recovery needs. So when they do a restore of a server to a specific date, the NTBACKUP file will be from the same backup day. In doing this, we are also trying to come up with some way to EXCLUDE the systemobject from the incremental backups WITHOUT having to manage the DOMAIN statements with individual drive letters. Since ALL-LOCAL assumes systemobject. I've searched the archives and also the Knowledge base on Tivoli and haven't found any way to EXCLUDE the system object without having to specify a DOMAIN that doesn't use ALL-LOCAL. Maybe with assigning to a specific management class will handle retention of the system objects and I'm just whistel'n in the wind here...? Bill Boyer "He who laughs last, probably did a backup!" - ??? - This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. - If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
