The exclude processing the journal daemon employs is a subset of the exclude processing the backup client provides.
Some primary differences between journal exclude processing and backup client exclude processing are that journal exclude processing doesn't support Exclude.Dir nor does it support Include statements. In general many exclude statements shouldn't not increase the likelihood of buffer overflow errors on Windows. Objects are excluded soon after the file system notification is received by the journal daemon and excluding the object prevents journal entries from being added or updated. The amount of processing required to exclude the objects (basically all done in memory ) is much less than the processing required to update the journal (i/o, etc.) so excluding objects which change frequently probably is more likely to decrease the likelihood of buffer overflows Hope this helps ..... Regards, Pete Tanenhaus Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development email: [email protected] tieline: 320.8778, external: 607.754.4213 "Those who refuse to challenge authority are condemned to conform to it" ---------------------- Forwarded by Pete Tanenhaus/San Jose/IBM on 06/09/2010 02:05 PM --------------------------- Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] cc: Subject: Question on include/exclude and Journal I have a client with a somewhat extensive include/exclude list for their file servers. They also have the Journal service configured since most of them are fairly large (object count), too. I've been searching, but is there any "recommendation" to have the include/exclude list in the Journal INI file match the ones for the B/A client? Or would that just add too much overhead to the journal service and increase your chances of the notify buffer filling up and the journal being marked invalid. Any opinions? Bill Boyer "The ride is the goal, the destination is just the excuse!" -- ??
