- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Re: Backup question
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-11-2010 01:11 AM
тАО06-11-2010 01:11 AM
Re: Backup question
Thanks for all your replies.
I see my problem now.
The parent directory to where I want to restore my file, has an ACE with the SAME IDENTIFIER NAME, but different access types.
So, as one of you mentioned above, the file is restored with this ACE.
If I remove the parent directory's ACE (or change the identifier's name) the file is restored with the original ACE and its access types.
Problem solved.
Thanks.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-11-2010 07:20 AM
тАО06-11-2010 07:20 AM
Re: Backup question
This behavior of BACKUP about ACE is not documented in any document. This is what I found the BACKUP code is doing for non image BACKUP. Yes, image BACKUP will restore entire disk with ACE without any problem since the disk mounted foreign where XQP will not get involved.
James,
Please refer the below link to thank the forum.
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do?#33
Regards,
Ketan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2010 01:31 AM
тАО06-12-2010 01:31 AM
Re: Backup question
When /interchange is used to create a save set, the ACLs are not copied into the save set.
When /interchange is used to create (non-save set) files on a disk (either restoring from a save set or when copying files from disk to disk), the /interchange qualifier prevents backup from specifying any protection or ACL, and the RMS default behavior dictates what the protection of the file will be. In other words, the behavior will be similar to COPY, but the file ownership still behaves the same as if /interchange was not used. The file protection mask is determined like copy, i.e. if a previous version of the file exists, then the new version will copy the protection from the previous file version, else if the target directory has a default_protection ACE, then that is used, else the processes RMS default protection is used. If the output file has an ACL, it came from a previous version of the file, or an ACE in the target directory that had options=default .
/interchange has no effect on the owner of the file, as backup always explicitly sets the owner of the created file. The owner will be set to the original owner (if /by_owner=original or /owner=original was specified), the UIC of the process running backup (the default behavior), the owner of the target directory (if /by_owner=parent specified), or a user specified UIC (if /by_owner=[UIC] specified). There is no way to get the behavior of COPY, which will attempt to preserve the ownership of the file, i.e. if there is a previous version of the file, and the process creating the file has the rights to specify this as the owner, then the new version of the file will have the same ownership as the previous version. This behavior is the default RMS behavior, and has been around since either V3 or V4 (I can't remember when it changed, it was a long time ago).
There is no backup /by_owner=rms_default. I really wish that was the default backup behavior, because if a privileged user uses backup to copy to another users directory and does not specify /owner=parent, then it is likely that the owner of the directory will not have the ability to do much with the file. But BACKUP's default behavior is extremely unlikely to change. I do wish there was a way to have backup use the rms_default behavior, as this is usually better than /own=parent.
Jon
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2010 03:02 AM
тАО06-12-2010 03:02 AM
Re: Backup question
What evidence do you have that the problem you posed exists, and that the removing an ACL on the target directory had any effect on the ACL of the restored file?
I can't reproduce the "problem" you originally described (backup not restoring the original ACL) unless the /interchange qualifier is used.
But if the /interchange qualifier is used, then the ACL is completely removed, and the only way an ACL will be applied to the restored file is if there is an ACL on the target directory, and that ACL has at least one ACE with the "options=default" attached.
Can you please provide the commands you used, and the version of VMS that was used?
Can you also provide an example of how the parent directory's ACL having an ACE with the same identifier makes any difference?
If you don't respond, we will have to assume that you can't reproduce the problem you were describing and that the ACL had no effect on what backup did.
See attached zip file that has a command procedure (renamed with .txt and a log file) showing the testing I did. The command proceedure should work as is if you want to test it. It will create subdirectories [.itrc1] and [.itrc2] while running.
Jon
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2010 08:11 PM
тАО06-13-2010 08:11 PM
Re: Backup question
BACKUP does not copy the ACL if the /INTERCHANGE qualifier is used. As I said earlier. BACKUP saves ACL in the saveset and to restore the ACL, the account which holds the same identifier should be used. This is applicable for BACKUP copy operation also.
BACKUP copy or restore operation does not apply the ACL of the target directory to the newly copied or restored file. Instead it inherits the all attributes including ACL (if the account which holds the same identifier is used to restore) and other security characteristics from the source file. This is because the file is represented by the attributes of its process and its source. After the BACKUP copy operation the ACL and other security characteristics for the newly created file should be added/modified by the user accordingly.
Regards,
Ketan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-14-2010 02:07 AM
тАО06-14-2010 02:07 AM
Re: Backup question
Can you provide an example where holding the identifier is required to copy an ACL with backup, other than when a subsystem identifier is involved?
Jon
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-14-2010 02:38 AM
тАО06-14-2010 02:38 AM
Re: Backup question
I mean account which holds the subsystem identifier as identifier in my previous update. Sorry for not being so clear in the update.
Regards,
Ketan
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »