Yes it still works that way when you don't specify a DIRMC. Kyle
fred johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special group of machines with all sorts of special handling. I've used DIRMC to ensure the directory of some desktop doesn't get treated in the same way. At 01:25 PM 3/19/2005 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, >Using a separate pool for directories is something that many have been >doing for a long time and just kept doing even after IBM implemented the >new directory restore method (restore order processing). If you look at a >directory as a small file then you can see why keeping it in a separate >pool so that you can keep that data on disk might help. This is one >reason why we have not yet stopped using the DIRMC. With that being said >more and more of my customers are implementing file device classes or >VTL's which keep most of the primary data on disk. As a result I no >longer see the need for separating out the directories to another disk >location. > >About a year ago many of my larger customers would complain about how long >the DIRMC disk pools would take to backup. In working with support we >found that this was a WAD feature. I think the issue was (can't remember >for sure) that each file in a disk pool is evaluated on every backup where >sequential access pools are evaluated differently. As a result we started >taking our DIRMC pools and giving them a small pool built with a file >device class definition. We made sure the data migrated from disk to file >device class each day and as a result the storage pool copy problem went away. > >Now the fact that we are using file device classes as described above is >why I am concerned about the issue that was mentioned in this thread about >the larger default block size. > >All of these issues together lead me to believe that DIRMC pools are no >longer as necessary as they used to be. > >Kyle > > >Paul Fielding wrote: >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" >To: >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? > > > > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! Fred Johanson ITSM Administrator University of Chicago 773-702-8464 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!