The dsm.opt file is not read from top to bottom, but INCLUDE and EXCLUDE statements are *processed* in bottom-up order. For each file that TSM looks at, it starts comparing the patterns in the include/exclude statements, and stops comparing when a match is found. If all include/exclude patterns don't match, then the file is backed up (i.e. TSM behaves as if there were an implicit "include *:\...\*" at the top of the include/exclude list.
Consider the following: 1) include c:\mydir\my.critical.file exclude c:\mydir\...\* versus: 2) exclude c:\mydir\...\* include c:\mydir\my.critical.file In #1, since processing is bottom-up, when TSM encounters file c:\mydir\my.critical.file, it will match the "exclude" pattern, and thus not be backed up. In #2, when TSM encounters file c:\mydir\my.critical.file, it matches the "include" pattern, and is thus backed up. On the other hand, when TSM encounters c:\mydir\some.other.file, it doesn't match the "include" pattern, but does match the "exclude" pattern, so that file is not backed up. When TSM encounters c:\yourdir\some.file, none of the patterns are matched, so the file is backed up. EXCLUDE.DIR is a bit different: these are always matched first, regardless of placement in the include/exclude list. Thus the following are equivalent: exclude.dir c:\mydir include c:\mydir\my.critical.file and include c:\mydir\my.critical.file exclude.dir c:\mydir In both of these cases, my.critical.file is never backed up because "exclude.dir" is processed first, regardless of physical position in the include/exclude list. 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 11:07:44: > This may be a strange question, but...we just had a TSM consultant here and > he said that the dsm.opt file is read from bottom to top. Is this correct? > Does placement of the statements matter either way? > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Raibeck > Sent: September 01, 2004 1:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Include/Exclude Question > > > > 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