Hi all!!
I have been working with Ike on this issue too. Can I add more?? please??
:-)
IBM has not only requested more and more traces, but they have consistently
complained that they are not receiving the data they need. Hmmm... On at
least 2 occasions, they specifically requested information that had already
been sent to them. Of course I pointed that out to them!!! :-) Too, the
IBM tech support rep asked for the wrong trace information, so we find out
the next day by their developer.
Peachy-King!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Hunley, Ike
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Archive hangs and Poor Archive Performance at TSM 4.1.2 &
4.2
HEAR! HEAR! That's what we've been saying all along. Not only that, but
Tivoli support has consistently implied that the programmers scripts caused
the problem, so the programmer is not happy with Tivoli at all!
To make matters worse, it took almost a month for them to tell us to
implement TSM 4.2
They also asked dumps and traces. When trace was on archive processes did
not hang. Nothing happened the same way twice. This has been a moving
target so it's a difficult bug to shoot.
I say that a process that had sub-second response in a prior release should
have the same or better response in a software release "upgrade".
Now we discover that this is a known problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Archive hangs and Poor Archive Performance at TSM 4.1.2 &
4.2
>The answer we've received is move to TSM 4.2 using the filelist option.
>Filelist will combine numerous archives in one archive session so that the
>cleanup process is not invoked as much.
>
>We can't say we're happy about having to re-write something that use to
work
>GREAT in release 3.1.06 and the ONLY thing changing is a release of the
same
>product.
That's the kind of recommendation one usually gets only as a circumvention.
The performance problem is conspicuously real, and Tivoli should be
providing
a fix for it, as the client software should never have gotten out in that
condition, given proper testing. At a minimum there should be an advisory
in
the client Readme file about the problem, but I see nothing there. This is
not being handled well.
Richard Sims, BU
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the
views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the
views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail
message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
