I have tested the backupset option and DAMN its slow. I figured I would be stuck with the archive option but I thought I would throw it out to the group. I didnt really have any intention of doing full+inc option. I have daily incrementals with no fulls and some archives for longer retention but I was hoping to increase my backup speed by using strictly incrementals.
R. -----Original Message----- From: Stapleton, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: inc mmc question From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CORP Rick Willmore >I have many windows 2000 clients that I wish to backup using >an incremental backup and specifying a MMC that is different >than one specified in my dsm.opt using the inclu/exclu >options. The idea is to have incrementals that are run daily >and a seperate set of incrementals that are run monthly >(different storage pool). Anyone have any suggestions? I am >trying to avoid using an archive due to database size and the >fact that the monthly incrementals are going to a tape pool >that will remain in my library. You are trying to force TSM back into the unscalable, hard-to-manage, full+incremental routine common with lesser backup packages. Trying to do what you suggest will bump up your database size as fast (or faster) than using an archive. If you want a "snapshot" of the state of a server or two on a monthly basis, consider using backupsets (which can come out of your library to make room for more scratch tapes). If you want to do this with more than a few servers, reconsider the archive idea. (And remember: you don't need to archive every file on every machine. Find your data and archive that only.) -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Berbee Information Networks Office 262.521.5627