Paul, It is definitely, absolutely, positively, seen it myself - fixed.... Been fixed for years. Forget DIRMC.
Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Paul Fielding > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 16:06 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance > issues resolved or not. > > > Hi Richard, > > I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have > done long ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate > directories are created and the real directories are restored > as they are hit. > > Has anyone really observed this to be genuinely true? I have > in the past observed the double-tape-mount theory, and though > I understand it is supposedly fixed, I haven't heard anyone > say "I have seen it, I know it works, you no longer need to > keep a dirmc diskpool". > > Of course, if it is indeed working as designed now, it > doesn't resolve the other dirmc issues currently being > discussed in this thread. > > Is there anyone on the list who has in recent history decided > to ditch using a dirmc diskpool altogether and done so with > success on the restore side? > > regards, > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation > performance issues resolved or not. > > > > Paul - > > > > This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. > > We've discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on > it in ADSM > > QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to > further pursuit > > in IBM doc. > > > > Richard Sims http://people.bu.edu/rbs > > > > On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Paul Fielding wrote: > > > >> I'd be interested in more discussion on this point. My original > >> understanding was actually a bit different that that. The > impression > >> I had was that originally directory tree structures were restored > >> before any files > >> happened, period. Following that, files would be restored. > Net result > >> - > >> tapes might get mounted twice. > >> > >> Is my understanding incorrect? (could well be). If this > behavior has > >> indeed been fixed so that directories are restored as they > are hit on > >> the tape (with a pre-created non-ACLed directory being > created first) > >> then it would > >> indeed make sense that a DIRMC pool is no longer needed. > >> > >> Is there any documentation on this somewhere I can reference? > > >