> As it relates to system objects would not the first statement exclude them > and the second pick them up? I'm not sure I saw that addressed but maybe the > original poster might also clarify if they need them.
Kelli indicated that the client system is NT 4.0, where the system objects issue does not apply (use the BACKUPREGISTRY YES | NO option instead). For W2K and up, you can modify the DOMAIN statement as appropriate to accommodate your system object needs. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/01/2004 09:52:33: > >But in my opinion, the *best* approach is to not bother with exclude to > >skip drives, but instead use the DOMAIN statement, which will simplify > >include/exclude AND avoid looking at the drives at all. A couple of > >methods: > > > > domain c: g: j: > > > > or > > > > domain -d: -e: -f: -h: -i: -k: -l: -m: > > > >The first version is easier to code. However, if drive P: is later added > >and you want to back it up, you will need to remember to modify the DOMAIN > >statement to ensure it gets backed up. On the other hand, if you don't > >want drive P: backed up, then the second version of the domain statement > >would have to be updated. Note that the second version covers your point > >re: backing up too much rather than too little. > > > >Regards, > > > >Andy > > As it relates to system objects would not the first statement exclude them > and the second pick them up? I'm not sure I saw that addressed but maybe the > original poster might also clarify if they need them. > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 854-0975
