Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lbertacco

selectors not working properly bug

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I'm trying to create a selector that backups everything except cache/temp stuff.

(please spare me the "backup all is better" and "excludes make backup easier but restore more difficult" stuff).

This should be pretty standard right, well it doesn't seem to be that easy!!!

 

First of all the standard selector "all files except cache" doesn't skip temps and anyway is a bit risky since it matches just the names and not the folder positions.

Second there is not a windows special folder for "Temporary" files.

 

So the only way to go is something like:

Include everything

but always exclude file matching

Windows path matches pattern "C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\"

or

...other conditions for \Windows\Temp and cache files.

 

Anyway even this doesn't work properly, and this time I think this is a bug.

When I "check" the selector above I get that all files are properly highlighted except the Temp folders and subfolders of some but not all users. For example I get that the Temp folder of user Administrator is (correctly) not highlighted but the Temp folder of LocalSystem IS highlighted (i.e. not properly excluded).

 

I believe that this is a bug since (lots people are complaining about selectors and) the filter "

Windows path matches pattern 'C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp*'"

works properly, deselecting the Temp folder for every user (even system ones), but

1) this doesn't comply with documented syntax

and

2) this is risky since it would exclude also folders like Temperature or something.

 

Also I think a preconfigured selector for standard system temp folders (%systemroot%\temp and %profile%\Local settings\Temp) would be quite usefull.

 

Regards

Livio Bertacco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This may look like a bug but I doubt it really is. Selectors take everything so literally it hurts to think about it. There is a reason why it isn't working the way you want it to - finding that reason is the killer.

 

I find mixing include and excludes to be confusing as I still haven't figure out which takes priority when.

Try this - Dont create any exclude conditions, just create include conditions that use "does not match" rules.

 

For example:

Include path name does not exactly match C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\

 

Hope that helps

Nate

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nate,

 

Thanks for your reply. Anyway I don't think your solution can work for me becuse I don't want to exclude just C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\, but also c:\windows\temp.

 

Of course something like:

+Include path name does not exactly match C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local

or

+Include path name does not exactly match C:\Windows\Temp

Wouldn't work since this would backup everything.

 

Furthermore I'd like to exclude some other stuff too, like netscape caches, IE history, and other file quite useless in case of a system crash.

 

BTW I think that it would be a good thing if "selectors take everything so literally"; my original selector was pretty strightforward with just "include everything" and one "exclude" line. It's shouldn't be difficult to figure out the result. I still belive that selectors are not working properly and actually don't take everything literally, just misbehave ...

 

I have more cases of selector not working properly.

Another selector of mine just has:

Inlcude everything

but always

exclude files matching

Windows Path exactly matches C:\WorkSpace\

 

I run this selector and it still backed up 19 files appearently randomly choosen in subdirectories of C:\WorkSpace for a total of 15MB. Note that under WorkSpace I have 15000 files in several subdirs for a total of 33GB. The 19 files backud up don't have anything special nor seem to fit any special pattern. They have not been modified recently or have special permission, nothing. They have been selected for no reason at all.

E.G:

C:\WorkSpace\codato\cbcframe3\tabu012.c

has been properly skipped, while

C:\WorkSpace\codato\cbcframe3\012cut.c

has been backed up.

These file have been created at the same time, have same modification time, same permissions, same owner, same everything, both not used/accessed since may 2003. Still one has properly been excluded while the other has been backed up. ???? confused.gif

Selector really choose randomly !!!

 

What I don't understand is why Dantz can't just fix this. It seems pretty easy, right. Why can't they get selector to work after so many releases?

 

Regards

Livio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I encountered the same problem yesterday (Restrospect 6.0.206 & Win 98SE), with the files selected to be *excluded* in this style: C:\LETTERS\another folder\*.* but weren't

 

Regards,

 

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at an earlier reply ('Selector name is: \Program Files\someprog doesn't work...

#34696 12/16/03 06:23 PM by Nate), it looks as though my problem is solved by:

 

disregarding: Universal Name

 

and using instead: Windows Path

 

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense. "someprog doesn't work... " is a file/folder name, which would match a name selector.

 

"\Program Files\someprog doesn't work... " is a path and would work with a path selector.

 

Technically, the path name is not the file/folder name.

 

As Nate said, "Selectors take everything so literally it hurts to think about it."

 

Thanks for the update!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree on that.

Anyway my selector exculsion line says:

Windows PATH matches pattern

and not

Windows FOLDER matches pattern.

So I expect the full path to be taken into account and don't see why it shouldn't work.

Also the pattern example, shown in the new condition dialog, has full path pattern and not just a folder name pattern.

 

(maybe you were just referring to the "Universal Name" problem?)

 

Regards

Livio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

I don't want to exclude just C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\, but also c:\windows\temp.

 

Of course something like:

+Include path name does not exactly match C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local

or

+Include path name does not exactly match C:\Windows\Temp

Wouldn't work since this would backup everything.

 

 


 

The selector:

Exclude Windows path of folder matches pattern C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\

 

worked for me under every condition I tested - for all user accounts. I think you may not be looking closely at the Temp folders under users like "LocalSystem." If you expand the folder down to the Temp directory you will see that it is indeed unchecked. Retrospect will not expand the full folder structures when the included/excluded folder contains no files, as will be the case with the LocalSystem account "Temp" directory.

 

Quote:

I have more cases of selector not working properly.

Another selector of mine just has:

Inlcude everything

but always

exclude files matching

Windows Path exactly matches C:\WorkSpace\

 

 


 

Keeping in mind that the selectors take everything literally you will note that this selector is not configured correctly. You are asking Retrospect to exclude files matching Windows Path exactly matches C:\WorkSpace\ -- where Workspace is a folder name not a file name.

 

 

When I added a condition to my selector, making it:

 

Exclude Windows path of folder matches pattern C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\

or

Exclude Windows path of folder matches pattern C:\Windows\Temp\

 

it also executed as expected - all Temp directories in the Documents and Settings User folders and the Temp folder in the Windows direcotory were excluded.

 

Quote:

BTW I think that it would be a good thing if "selectors take everything so literally"; my original selector was pretty strightforward with just "include everything" and one "exclude" line. It's shouldn't be difficult to figure out the result. I still belive that selectors are not working properly and actually don't take everything literally, just misbehave ...

 

What I don't understand is why Dantz can't just fix this. It seems pretty easy, right. Why can't they get selector to work after so many releases?

 

 


 

 

They are working correctly. Criteria can't be close to correct - it has to be exact. You mentioned that some files were backed up from folders that should have been excluded. In making this determination, it is very important that you are browsing Sessions and not Snapshots to see the files backed up. A Snapshot does not know what was excluded by a Selector, so if the exact files live on any other volume ever backed up by Retrospect to the same backup set they will show up in the Snapshot.

 

An example:

File A is copied to My Documents and also My Pictures. The file is exactly the same in both locations. If you execute a backup of your C: drive, with a selector which excludes the My Pictures directory, the file will still show up in the Snapshot under My Pictures. It will not, however, show up in the session.

 

The files you mentioned had not been modified since 2003 - but that does not mean that a user does not still have some random work files in a location on their drive other then the "Workspace" folder - files that are an exact match to those contained in the Workspace folder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

The selector:

Exclude Windows path of folder matches pattern C:\Documents and Settings\*\Local Settings\Temp\

worked for me under every condition I tested - for all user accounts. I think you may not be looking closely at the Temp folders under users like "LocalSystem." If you expand the folder down to the Temp directory you will see that it is indeed unchecked. Retrospect will not expand the full folder structures when the included/excluded folder contains no files, as will be the case with the LocalSystem account "Temp" directory.

EndQuote

 

If I test the selector by clicking on the check mark (check selector) button under Configure->Selectors I can see that e.g. the Temp dir for user Bruno (c:\documents and settings\bruno\local settings\temp) is unchecked, however it is highlighted with blue background (what does this mean? is it selected or not?). Then if I do a restore I find that these files have been backed up:

C:\documents and Settings\bruno\local settings\temp\~e5d141.tmp

C:\documents and Settings\bruno\local settings\temp\dsw61.tmp

and also folder C:\documents and Settings\bruno\local settings\temp\~ef7fc9 and all files under this folder

This is in clear contrast with the selector!!!

 

Quote

Keeping in mind that the selectors take everything literally you will note that this selector is not configured correctly. You are asking Retrospect to exclude files matching Windows Path exactly matches C:\WorkSpace\ -- where Workspace is a folder name not a file name.

EndQuote

 

Hey this doesn't depend on me!!! cryrub.gif. Whatever exclusion filter you create, retrospect, when showing the selector details, writes: "but always exclude files matching" and then lists the criteria...it doesn't care if your criteria is based on filenames or folders !!!!!

Are you saying this is an intrinsic Retrospect bug???

 

Quote

Criteria can't be close to correct - it has to be exact. You mentioned that some files were backed up from folders that should have been excluded. In making this determination, it is very important that you are browsing Sessions and not Snapshots to see the files backed up

EndQuote

 

My criteria is exact of course, yet retrospect doesn't respect it. To make this determination I'm browsing sessions (not snapshot). If I do full restore I get some files that should have been excluded. And when I use "check selector" button I see files highlighted tough thay should have been excluded. In other words, selectors don't work properly.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, try to stay technical here and instead of dumply repeat "Selectors take everything so literally it hurts to think about it", try to pinpoint the issue. I've presented the selector and presented the results (which are in contrast with the selector). Clearly there is something wrong. Either in the selector and/or in Retrospect. So just say "hey, your selector is wrong for this or that reason" or confirm that retrospect has a bug. It's completely useless that you keep repeating me: "Keep in mind that the selectors take everything literally": I take everything literally too!!! And retrospect is literally backing up something that has been literally excluded by the selector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone agrees, including us at Dantz that the selector interface needs updating and fixing.

 

 

 

In the end it is all pure logic.

 

 

 

My tips:

 

 

 

I find the best success when using file name ends with, exactly matches or file name contains.

 

 

 

I try to avoid path based selectors, mostly because they are very strict, often requiring / at the end of the path. To see the path Retrospect will understand, go to Configure>Volumes. browse the disk and get properties on the item you want to include in the path selector.

 

 

 

I also write my selectors this way:

 

1) Add a condition.

 

2) Check the selector to make sure it works with that condition

 

3) Add the next condition

 

4) Check the selector to make sure it works with that condition and it hasn't stopped working. If it stops working, then the latest condition "broke it"

 

 

 

I also use "or" rather then "and" most of the time.

 

 

 

Every selector can be written 100 different ways to reach the same results, keep it simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×