thanks a lot for your good and founded answers! Juraj Salak
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sub-File Backup - 1 GB Limit > > > Subfilecachesize could be raised; please submit a requirement > and let us > know what types of cache sizes you need. The cache size is > not bounded by > the 32-bit differencing image limit. > > System objects and subfile processing would be very > difficult. I would > suggest pushing a requirement for incremental processing of > system files, > which are the files that get resent on every system object > backup that are > probably causing the majority of your woes. That would probably > alleviate your problem and be a more applicable solution to > other problems > in this area. > > Thanks, > Jim > > Thanks, > Jim > > J.P. (Jim) Smith > TSM Client Development > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hi Jim > > postings from development are always welcome. > > Beeing curious I (mis)use your readiness and ask > you prior to opening a requirement: > > Are you limited with 32-bit addressing > with SubFileCachesize with its maximum of 1 GB as well, > or would it be simple for you to raise this limit > significantly higher? > > The business case is ability to backup (almost) whole filesystems > on small file servers over leased lines with limited throughput. > > And - any would it be troublesome to apply differencing technology for > system objects backup? > The business case is ability to backup enormous system objects from > servers > with microsoft systems over leased lines with limited throughput. > > best regards > Juraj Salak, Asamer Holding > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:00 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sub-File Backup - 1 GB Limit > > > > > > Tim, > > > > Actually, two different behaviors based on two-different > > problems. Files > > that start less then 2 GB but grow > 2 GB will continue to > use subfile > > backup as long as the other requirements for the base file > > (i.e., the file > > on the client cache) is still valid. The limiting factor > here is that > > there is only 32-bit support in the differencing subsystem > that we are > > using. We chose 2 GB on the onset (instead of 4 GB) as the > > limit to avoid > > any possible boundary problems near the 32-bit addressing > > limit and also > > because this technology was aimed at the mobile market (read: > > who is going > > to have files on their laptops > 2 GB). I understand that there are > > several shops that use this technology beyond the laptop > environment. > > Ultimately, the solution is to have a 64-bit subsystem in > > place so that we > > can go beyond 4 GB. I suggest a requirement to Tivoli if this is > > important to your shop. > > > > The low-end limit (1024 bytes) was due to some strange behavior with > > really small files, e.g., if a file started out at 5 k and then was > > truncated to 8 bytes. The solution was to just send the > > entire file if > > the file fell below the 1k threshold. We can get away with > resending > > these small files because ... they are small files! It is > > probably a wash > > to resend or to try to correctly send a delta file in this case. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > - Jim > > > > J.P. (Jim) Smith > > TSM Client Development > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Thanks Jim! > > > > I was confusing "size of base file falls < 1024" with 1 GB! > > > > So if a file starts at less than 2 GB but then grows bigger > > than 2GB it > > will > > no longer be eligible? Similar if a file falls below 1024 bytes? > > > > Thanks again! > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: January 3, 2003 4:36 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sub-File Backup - 1 GB Limit > > > > Tim, > > > > Actually, the subfile limit is 2 Gig; if a file size > 2 Gig > > then TSM will > > not bother to copy the base file to the client cache, so it > > could not be a > > candidate for subfile processing on a subsequent backup. > > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > J.P. (Jim) Smith > > TSM Client Development > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Last August, Jim Smith wrote: > > > > > > >Today the client code will send a new base file in these cases: > > > > > >- if the last time the detla was taken, the ratio of > > delta:base is > .40 > > >- digital signature of base is incorrect or doesn't match > > signature on > > >server > > >- base entry on client cache is dirty, i.e., never committed on the > > server > > >- size of base file falls < 1024 > > >- file is excluded from subfile backup processing, i..e, > > exclude.subfile > > >- file is encrypted by Windows efs > > > > > > I just want to double check, does this mean that there is > > still the 1GB > > limit for subfile backup? Ie. If a file is > 1 GB, is it > > ineligible for > > subfile processing? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tim Rushforth > > City of Winnipeg > > >
