Bill, Thanks for the update/info. I guess I will wait for 6.1.5.200, which is scheduled for 1Q2012.
Yes, we did switch to the "Unified Recovery" license model but with enough room for growth/shrinkage so I don't know if this will matter that much (roughly 15TB difference on this, my only 6.1 server). I will pass this on to let know folks that Occupancy numbers on this server are "artificially inflated" and therefore inaccurate (high by about 15% if my "gozinta" is correct). Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html From: "Colwell, William F." <bcolw...@draper.com> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 03/07/2012 09:24 AM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Occupancy discrepancy between 6.1.5.10 and 6.2.3.0 server Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> Zoltan, occupancy numbers were made incorrect by various bugs in early 6.1 code, see apar ic73005. There is a special utility to fix the numbers, "repair occupancy". It was supposed to be in 6.1.5.10 but isn't, you need an e-fix for 6.1.5.102. Of course, you can ignore the errors unless you are using the unified recovery license. Bill Colwell Draper Lab -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:26 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Occupancy discrepency between 6.1.5.10 and 6.2.3.0 server Doing some reorganization, we recently moved (server-to-server export) some nodes from a 6.1.5.10 server to a 6.2.3.0 server. Now, the occupancy numbers on the 6.2 (71mb) server are lower than the 6.1.5 (83mb) server, eventhough the file/object counts are identical (static file system)? All of the apars I found (so far) that address occupancy information are at (supposedly) patch levels below these levels. Anyone else see this kind of discrepancy? Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
