Thanks for all the information ... very useful would anyone mind sharing assessment they have conducted or commission to be conducted?
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Xav Paice <xpa...@oss.co.nz> wrote: > ----- "yoda woya" <yodaw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: "yoda woya" <yodaw...@gmail.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Sent: Sunday, 14 March, 2010 2:47:10 PM > > Subject: [ADSM-L] assessing the health TSM installation > > > > if I were to be looking to assess the health of TSM, what would be > > the top > > things to look for > > off the top of my head (we use a template for this at the office): > - database backups are frequent enough and allow for the desired recovery > point of the organisation > - copy pools and database backups are sent off site (i.e. not left in the > library or in a cardboard box beside it) > - performance bottlenecks (there's a client and server commands to check > this) > - spread of tapes - if a restore needs 100 tape mounts then it's not going > to be acceptable > - daily maintenance routines, is everything getting done or is something > missing (maybe expiry never gets done or something like that) > - where is the time of the administrator spent, is there a better way to > achieve the same result? > - what's the history of the installation - has it suffered downtime issues > from something, etc? > - what's the organisational goals for TSM - do the copygroup settings match > that, is there wasted space or is data getting missed? > > Often I come across installations that are great except for a few minor > config settings that prevent perfect operation - pulling tapes out of the > library from the primary stgpool without setting an overflow location, or > not setting reusedelay on copy pools. >
