Aller au contenu principal

Please explain numbering system

Thread needs solution

I have a backup routine that makes three backups a week a full backup after each of 3 backups. It is supposed to keep a maximum of three backup chains. This should result in three weeks of backups.

So...What's going on here? Why is MWFSu(6) followed by MWFSu(2)3(1)?

01/13/2012  06:35 AM    73,311,019,520 MWFSu(2).tib
01/16/2012  02:53 AM     2,321,951,232 MWFSu(2)2.tib
02/10/2012  01:52 AM        39,729,152 MWFSu(2)3(1).tib
01/18/2012  03:13 AM     1,728,445,440 MWFSu(2)3.tib
01/20/2012  07:38 AM    73,650,853,888 MWFSu(3).tib
01/23/2012  02:54 AM       764,354,560 MWFSu(3)2.tib
01/25/2012  02:44 AM       401,856,000 MWFSu(3)3.tib
01/27/2012  07:55 AM    74,253,780,480 MWFSu(4).tib
01/30/2012  02:58 AM     5,396,428,800 MWFSu(4)2.tib
02/01/2012  02:22 PM     1,916,486,144 MWFSu(4)3.tib
02/02/2012  11:43 AM    66,900,135,936 MWFSu(5).tib
02/03/2012  02:43 AM       271,315,968 MWFSu(5)2.tib
02/06/2012  02:44 AM       524,671,488 MWFSu(5)3.tib
02/08/2012  05:48 AM    67,031,593,984 MWFSu(6).tib

What exactly do the parentheses and all the different numbers mean?

0 Users found this helpful

Les Seiler wrote:
I just uninstalled (using Cleanup) and reinstalled version 2012 build 6154 at the request of technical support who have been supposedly working on my backup issue for going on five weeks now. Yes, after five weeks of having me try different things, their answer is to once again uninstall and reinstall.

The new install of messed up your prior task. In order to keep things straight, you needed a new task. My suggestion would be to start a new task pointing to a DIFFERENT folder or sub-folder. If you must delete files for space, I would delete manually.

Ah, OK. So I started completely from scratch with a new destination folder. I'll leave the old chains in the old folder for recovery purposes for a few weeks, and once these new backups are under way, I'll start manually deleting the old chains.

So what is the numbering system supposed to be, though?

Thanks. That KB article was exactly what I was looking for, but couldn't find.