unsubscribe
Regards, Stuart Stuart Grant UNIX SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR IBM Global Services AUSTRALIA 55 Coonara Ave, WEST PENNANT HILLS, NSW 2125 Office Telephone: +61-2-9354-9034 SameTime/E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unsubscribe
Cheryl Miller Wells Fargo Bank
Re: Linux Kernel 2.4.9-e.27smp unsupported by TSM Device Driver
You should look at the README (I havent seen it yet), it will detail the kernel version that is supported for 5.2.2.0. Remember you must use the supplied binary kernel from the distributor (as a guess RedHat in your case). 2.4.9.e-27 was supported with 5.2.0 from memory. ...deon --- Have you looked at the A/NZ Tivoli User Group website? http://www.tuganz.org Deon George, IBM Tivoli Software Engineer, IBM Australia Office: +61 3 9626 6058, Fax: +61 3 9626 6622, Mobile: +61 412 366 816, IVPN +70 66058 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.ibm.com/tivoli "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 13/01/2004 05:53:07 AM: > Hi, > I am configuring Tivoli Storage Agent for Linux v.5.2.1.2 in a Linux > machine, RedHat AS 2.1 kernel 2.4.9-e.27, but when I run the script to load > the tsm device driver I get the following message: > "TSM device driver not available for kernel release 2.4.9-e.27smp" > > I upgraded the Storage Agent to version 5.2.2.0 but I have the same > problem... > > Does Somebody know if this kernel will be supported? > > Thanks / Regards > Henry Aranda > > _ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
SUNSolaris/ SCSI Commands/ Tapeutil equivalent
Folks, Anybody out there know of how I might manipulate a HP-C7200 library (6 dlt7000) attached to a Sun Solaris box... at SCSI level. I am after a utility or command similar to tapeutil/mtlib on AIX that might allow me to inventory carts- in-slots and compare to output of libv within TSM. Thanks. Regards, Stuart
Re: Using Sun dds4 drive with tsm
Hi, I have two Sun E250s with dds4 drives. I had tried to use the sun driver with tsm but tsm did not like it and was forced to use IBMs driver (the tape would not get mounted). I have not had the need to do a bare restore but have been able to use the ibm driver with ufsdump. I use the dds4 drives and tsm server 5 to backup up the servers and then backup the database across the network to two different hard drives. On 12 Jan 2004 at 16:36, Lee, Gary D. wrote: > Sun e3500 server running solaris 2.8, tsm server v5.1.6.2. > > I have just installed a dds4 drive on this machine. > > Using the Solaris st driver, I can successfully use tar, and mt with this drive. > > I would like to use it for creating backup sets, but also have the use of it with > tar, ufsdump etc. > > The eventual outcome of this plan is to create a bare metal restore plan for the tsm > server. > > From my reading of the tsm admin guide, it looks as if I must use the tivoli device > driver instead of Solaris st. Questions: > > 1. Is this really the case? > > 2. Anyone done a bare metal restore of a solaris based tsm server? > > 3. If yes, please give a general overview. > > Thanks for the help. Just trying to get our site as prepared as possible. > > > Gary Lee > Senior Operating Systems Analyst > Ball State University > phone 765-285-1310 > «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤» Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school. -Albert Einstein Steve O. http://www.steveo.us B17G Bomber "Yankee Lady" Flight http://www.steveo.us/b17ride
Using Sun dds4 drive with tsm
Sun e3500 server running solaris 2.8, tsm server v5.1.6.2. I have just installed a dds4 drive on this machine. Using the Solaris st driver, I can successfully use tar, and mt with this drive. I would like to use it for creating backup sets, but also have the use of it with tar, ufsdump etc. The eventual outcome of this plan is to create a bare metal restore plan for the tsm server. >From my reading of the tsm admin guide, it looks as if I must use the tivoli device >driver instead of Solaris st. Questions: 1. Is this really the case? 2. Anyone done a bare metal restore of a solaris based tsm server? 3. If yes, please give a general overview. Thanks for the help. Just trying to get our site as prepared as possible. Gary Lee Senior Operating Systems Analyst Ball State University phone 765-285-1310
Re: NW 6.5 corruption problem.
Yes, we're up to SP1. And there are no NSS post SP patches to speak of - beta or otherwise. Just double checked on Netware's site and still nothing new. thnx >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/01/2004 12:18:48 pm >>> Do you have the NSS patches installed ? There have been some major problems with NSS. Currently the "post SP" patches are still in beta but every comment I have seen is to install them, asap. Some of the fixed address data corruption issues, especially from compression. Curt Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 03:05 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:NW 6.5 corruption problem. Has anyone come across a situation like this before? Using TSM Server 5.2.1.2 and the latest version of the Netware Client 5.2.2.0. When the client was originally installed on the Netware 6.5 server (back in Dec), the backups/restores worked just fine. Over the weekend, we upgraded several Netware volumes from being TRADITIONAL format to NSS format to accommodate Mac file capabilities. THE PROBLEM: There was a backup done Sunday night of the new Volumes and this seemed to cause documents throughout the drives to become corrupt. INITIAL TESTING: We have tried the following patterns of restore - Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume & different location = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to TRAD volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS & different location volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to TRAD volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to NSS volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to TRAD volume = WORKS ~ We've found that any files that were compressed before the conversion made it through without being a problem. Any ideas?!? ___ Curt Watts Network Analyst, Capilano College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NW 6.5 corruption problem.
Do you have the NSS patches installed ? There have been some major problems with NSS. Currently the "post SP" patches are still in beta but every comment I have seen is to install them, asap. Some of the fixed address data corruption issues, especially from compression. Curt Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 03:05 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:NW 6.5 corruption problem. Has anyone come across a situation like this before? Using TSM Server 5.2.1.2 and the latest version of the Netware Client 5.2.2.0. When the client was originally installed on the Netware 6.5 server (back in Dec), the backups/restores worked just fine. Over the weekend, we upgraded several Netware volumes from being TRADITIONAL format to NSS format to accommodate Mac file capabilities. THE PROBLEM: There was a backup done Sunday night of the new Volumes and this seemed to cause documents throughout the drives to become corrupt. INITIAL TESTING: We have tried the following patterns of restore - Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume & different location = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to TRAD volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS & different location volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to TRAD volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to NSS volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to TRAD volume = WORKS ~ We've found that any files that were compressed before the conversion made it through without being a problem. Any ideas?!? ___ Curt Watts Network Analyst, Capilano College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NW 6.5 corruption problem.
Has anyone come across a situation like this before? Using TSM Server 5.2.1.2 and the latest version of the Netware Client 5.2.2.0. When the client was originally installed on the Netware 6.5 server (back in Dec), the backups/restores worked just fine. Over the weekend, we upgraded several Netware volumes from being TRADITIONAL format to NSS format to accommodate Mac file capabilities. THE PROBLEM: There was a backup done Sunday night of the new Volumes and this seemed to cause documents throughout the drives to become corrupt. INITIAL TESTING: We have tried the following patterns of restore - Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to NSS volume & different location = still corrupt Most recent backup (Jan 11) to TRAD volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to NSS & different location volume = still corrupt Point in time backup (Jan 10am) to TRAD volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to NSS volume = WORKS Oldest backup version of the file available (Various dates) to TRAD volume = WORKS ~ We've found that any files that were compressed before the conversion made it through without being a problem. Any ideas?!? ___ Curt Watts Network Analyst, Capilano College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ANU2508E wrong write state
Joe - I have seen the same thing and reported it to IBM, but so far they have just given me a list of things to check. I encourage you to call it in too, if they see another account having the same problem, it might prompt them to work harder on it. Everything on the server and client checks out fine, and since we run ~30 instances of oracle on the same machine, and the same tdpo backs up 29 just fine, well it is a mystery. The one odd thing about the one instance that gets these errors is that it only happens on a level 2 backup; level 0 backups (full) run fine. Hope this helps, Bill Colwell At 12:23 PM 1/10/2004, you wrote: >Need help... > >I'm getting this message prior to the TDP for Oracle backup failure. It transmits >appx 6G over 3 channels, but then generates the following errors in the >tdpoerror.log. I'm not that concerned with >the ANU2602E or the ANS4994S, but I am concerned with the ANU2508E. Also, there is >very little documentation on the error. >We (tsm admins) did not change any configuration on our side, and the DBA's state >they made no changes on their side. There is nothing in the actlog to indicate there >is a problem. My initial >question is, "what is in the "Wrong write state""? And my next question is, how do I >resolve? Before I call support, does anyone have any insight? > >OS platform SunOS 5.8 >Oracle 8.1.7 >TDPv2.2.1 >TSM Server V5,2,0.0 running on zOS > >01/10/04 09:26:59 ANU2508E Wrong write state >01/10/04 09:28:30 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9720.515063712 was not >found on the TSM Server >01/10/04 09:28:30 ANS4994S TDP Oracle SUN ANU0599 ANU2602E The object >/adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9720.515063712 was not fou >nd on the TSM Server >01/10/04 09:28:31 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9719.515063712 was not >found on the TSM Server >01/10/04 09:28:31 ANS4994S TDP Oracle SUN ANU0599 ANU2602E The object >/adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9719.515063712 was not fou >nd on the TSM Server > >Regards, Joe -- Bill Colwell C. S. Draper Lab Cambridge Ma.
Re: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x
I did need to install the new license fileset (tivoli.tsm.license.* - in AIX) but I could use my old license files (mgsyslan.lic, etc). -Bill -Original Message- From: Pothula S Paparao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x Few weeks back i did migration from 4.2.x.x to 5.1.7.3 ... You need new license files , comes with 5.1.0.0 base version. Thanks and regards, Sreekumar P.Pothula Strategic Outsourcing IBM Global Services Notes ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Voice : Office : (65) 6840 2637 Mobile : (65) 9271 0345 - Everybody has a photographic memory, some just don't have film. |-+---> | | "Rozmiarek, Bill" | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | TALONE.COM> | | | Sent by: "ADSM: Dist| | | Stor Manager" | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | U> | | | | | | | | | 01/09/2004 09:57 PM | | | Please respond to | | | "ADSM: Dist Stor| | | Manager"| | | | |-+---> >--- ---| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x | | | >--- ---| I'm going to be upgrading from 4.2.x.x to 5.1.x.x. The migration documentation in one part says I will need to register new license keys and in another part says I won't need to. Do any of you who have migrated from 4.2 to 5.1 remember if you needed new keys? Thanks. -Bill Bill Rozmiarek http://gatheredtogether.rozmiarek.org ** The information transmitted herewith is sensitive information intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. ** The information transmitted herewith is sensitive information intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.
Linux Kernel 2.4.9-e.27smp unsupported by TSM Device Driver
Hi, I am configuring Tivoli Storage Agent for Linux v.5.2.1.2 in a Linux machine, RedHat AS 2.1 kernel 2.4.9-e.27, but when I run the script to load the tsm device driver I get the following message: "TSM device driver not available for kernel release 2.4.9-e.27smp" I upgraded the Storage Agent to version 5.2.2.0 but I have the same problem... Does Somebody know if this kernel will be supported? Thanks / Regards Henry Aranda _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Update: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x
Turns out that I didn't need new keys but I did have to re-register my existing keys. -Bill -Original Message- From: Stapleton, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x Yes, you'll need new license keys. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -Original Message- From: Rozmiarek, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 1/9/2004 07:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Upgrading to TSM 5.1.x.x I'm going to be upgrading from 4.2.x.x to 5.1.x.x. The migration documentation in one part says I will need to register new license keys and in another part says I won't need to. Do any of you who have migrated from 4.2 to 5.1 remember if you needed new keys? Thanks. -Bill Bill Rozmiarek http://gatheredtogether.rozmiarek.org ** The information transmitted herewith is sensitive information intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. ** The information transmitted herewith is sensitive information intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.
Test message
This is a test from the list owner. Please ignore. Martha
Re: Export / Import
Some things to check that can affect the number of files after an IMPORT: 1) Did you specify ALLDATA or ALLACTIVE on your EXPORT NODE command? ISUUED: Export node PHLHR files=* filed=all tos=AIXTSM-MAIN 2) Are ALL management classes/copy groups EXACTLY the same on the source and target server, including the management class the directories will bind to? If not, repeat the IMPORT with them EXACTLY the same. Yes. We are just using the default of 1 active and 4 inactive. One thing though we are going to different policy domains. 3) Did EXPIRATION run on the target server before you took these statistics, possibly deleting a lot of files? No. 4) Did you ever run CLEAN BACKUPGROUPS on your 4.2.x server? If not, (and you backup WIn2K clients) I wonder if there are some "dead/disconnected" files that were not really accessible and therefore did not export. This was a NT node. Not W2k. I'm so confused!!! Thanks for any help. I think I'm going to open an issue with Tivoli support. Regards, Brian Brian L. Nick Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions The Phoenix Companies Inc. 100 Bright Meadow Blvd Enfield CT. 06082-1900 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE: (860)403-2281 "Prather, Wanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UAPL.EDU>cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Export / Import Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/12/2004 10:46 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" When I have done server-to-server EXPORT/IMPORT to servers with incompatible media types, there were some differences in the logical/physical space occupied on the target server. I assume that was due to differences in how blocks are formatted with the different media, because testing restores worked fine, and I got exactly the same number of files on the source and target servers. But your results are more disturbing, because the number of FILES is different on the source and target server. Clearly there are files (or objects) missing. Some things to check that can affect the number of files after an IMPORT: 1) Did you specify ALLDATA or ALLACTIVE on your EXPORT NODE command? 2) Are ALL management classes/copy groups EXACTLY the same on the source and target server, including the management class the directories will bind to? If not, repeat the IMPORT with them EXACTLY the same. 3) Did EXPIRATION run on the target server before you took these statistics, possibly deleting a lot of files? 4) Did you ever run CLEAN BACKUPGROUPS on your 4.2.x server? If not, (and you backup WIn2K clients) I wonder if there are some "dead/disconnected" files that were not really accessible and therefore did not export. If you check all those things and still have no answer, what I would do is pick a couple of filespaces, run SELECT to dump the contents of the BACKUPS table for each of those filespaces, and write a script to compare the two. That should give you an idea of which files are missing from the target server. If the results still don't make sense, I would open a PMR with IBM. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Nick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Export / Import Good morning everyone, We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running on OS/390 2.10 to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using the server to server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an example from a 'Q OCC" command: q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical Logical Name Pool Name Files Space Space Occupied Occupied (MB) (MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 1,870.58 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 1.90 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 1,869.93 UP_STK9- 840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 35,020.67 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 0.77
Re: TDP Retention Verification
OH, yep, after seeing Wanda's note... it will depend on which TDP agent you are using. I'm so use to mainly dealing with TDP/R3, sorry... the tdp/oracle and others use backups rather than archives to store the data. you may run a "q file " to look for the filespace that stands out as what might be the one currently being used tsm: TSM>q file bob Node Name Filespace FSID Platform Filespace Is Files- Capacity Pct Name Typepace(MB) Util Unicode? --- --- - - - BOB /tdp 251 SUN SOL- API:XINT-No 0.0 0.0 ARIS V3 BOB /tdpmux 252 SUN SOL- API:XINT-No 0.0 0.0 ARIS V3 tsm: TSM>q occ bob /tdp* Node Name Type Filespace FSID StorageNumber of Physical Logical Name Pool Name Files Space Space Occupied Occupied (MB) (MB) -- -- - -- - - - BOBArch /tdpmux 49 3590P1E6,462 290,166.5 290,166.5 5 5 tsm: TSM>show archive BOB /tdpmux Conversion status for node BOB (True) /tdpmux : (FILE) / SAPBD19E01061021_0 (MC: B7.3_R35.95_A35) Inserted 01/06/04 10:22:34 /tdpmux : (FILE) / SAPBD19E01061021_1 (MC: B7.3_R35.95_A35) Inserted 01/06/04 10:22:34 <...> Dwight "Prather, Wanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UAPL.EDU>cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: TDP Retention Verification Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/12/2004 10:17 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" You can check on the server end: select * from backups where node_name='TDPNODE' and filespace_name='TDPFSNAME' -Original Message- From: Rob Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TDP Retention Verification Is there any way to verify what Management Class certain objects are being bound to within TDP? I have the dsm.opt file for TDP set to a certain management class and I want to verify it is working properly. TDP Version: 5.2 Server OS: Windows 2003 Exchange Version: 2003 Thanks, Rob <><><>
re> Subject: TSM Server 5.2.2.0 actlog prob {Scanned}
Problem: The default activity log query from the web browser is not working. I get: ANR2020E QUERY ACTLOG: Invalid parameter - DOMAINNAME. I see we have written an APAR for this issue, dated 01-06-04 refer to APAR # IC38868 regards -Darrius Darrius Plantz IBM Software Group - Tivoli Solutions Storage (TSM) Field Issues Mgr, Field Input Communications Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Try us out! Our web Support site is at: http://www-3.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTivoliStorageManager.html
TSM CLient and 2003
All, Does anyone know of any issues with any TSM client versions and windows 2003 cluster? O maybe a better way to ask is what version client runs best on a Windows 2003 cluster? Thanks, Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154
Re: TDP Retention Verification
you can use the undocumented debug command to look at things use "show archive" with the node's name and the file space /tdpmux, so say the node is SAPSRV1, try show archive sapsrv1 /tdpmux > mytemp.out from a dsmadmc session Dwight Rob Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Y.COM> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: TDP Retention Verification Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/12/2004 10:13 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Is there any way to verify what Management Class certain objects are being bound to within TDP? I have the dsm.opt file for TDP set to a certain management class and I want to verify it is working properly. TDP Version: 5.2 Server OS: Windows 2003 Exchange Version: 2003 Thanks, Rob <><><>
Re: TDP Retention Verification
You can check on the server end: select * from backups where node_name='TDPNODE' and filespace_name='TDPFSNAME' -Original Message- From: Rob Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TDP Retention Verification Is there any way to verify what Management Class certain objects are being bound to within TDP? I have the dsm.opt file for TDP set to a certain management class and I want to verify it is working properly. TDP Version: 5.2 Server OS: Windows 2003 Exchange Version: 2003 Thanks, Rob
TDP Retention Verification
Is there any way to verify what Management Class certain objects are being bound to within TDP? I have the dsm.opt file for TDP set to a certain management class and I want to verify it is working properly. TDP Version: 5.2 Server OS: Windows 2003 Exchange Version: 2003 Thanks, Rob
Re: Antwort: Re: Export / Import
Rainer, Here is the export command that we ran for this NT server EXPORT NODE PHLHR FILES=* FILED=ALL TOS=AIXTSM-MAIN. It is my understanding that this should move all of this nodes data. When we move a W2K node I add the UNIFILES=* parameter. I did notice that my 4.2 server might be having an expiration issue. I just updated the client option file to look back at the old server and I noticed that there were 1 active and 9 inactive copies for some of the backup data for this node. The management class should be 1 active and 4 inactive. We have not made any changes to OS/390 server in months. Now I'm wondering if I have an expiration issue YIKES, this like a stinking snowball rolling downhill - Brian Brian L. Nick Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions The Phoenix Companies Inc. 100 Bright Meadow Blvd Enfield CT. 06082-1900 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE: (860)403-2281 "Rainer Holzinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] YMMENE.COM>cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Subject: Antwort: Re: Export / Import Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 10:47 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Brian, what exactly was the export command you entered? Could it be that only active files have been exported/imported? I don't know how inactive files are handled at export/import which have been deleted from client. Are they exported? regards, Rainer Alexander Verkooijen An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: NL> Thema: Re: Export / Import Gesendet von: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] T.EDU> 12.01.2004 16:41 Bitte antworten an "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" You're right, I hadn't noticed that. The number of files should have been the same. Regards, Alexander Alexander Verkooijen Senior Systems Programmer High Performance Computing SARA Computing & Networking Services > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:35 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Export / Import > > > That was my original assumption but if you look at the 'q occ' results > there is a discrepancy in the number of files as well. That is my main > concern. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > > > "Alexander > Verkooijen" To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: > L> Subject: Re: > Export / Import > Sent by: "ADSM: > Dist Stor > Manager" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > .EDU> > 01/12/2004 10:30 > AM > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor > Manager" > > > > > I'm not sure but since the physical space occupied decreases > could it be that the export/import process reconstruct the > aggregates and thus removes any 'holes' you may have had > in your aggregates on the OS/390 server? > > Regards, > > Alexander > > > Alexander Verkooijen > Senior Systems Programmer > High Performance Computing > SARA Computing & Networking Services > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:05 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Export / Import > > > > > > Good morning everyone, > > > > We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running > > on OS/390 2.10 > > to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using > > the server to > > server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing > > discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an > > example from a 'Q > > OCC" command: > > > > > > q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) > > > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of > Physical > > Logical > > Name Pool Name Files > Space > > Space > > > Occupied > > Occupied > > > (MB) > > (MB) > > -- -- - -- - > - > > - > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_-
Antwort: Re: Export / Import
Brian, what exactly was the export command you entered? Could it be that only active files have been exported/imported? I don't know how inactive files are handled at export/import which have been deleted from client. Are they exported? regards, Rainer Alexander Verkooijen An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: NL> Thema: Re: Export / Import Gesendet von: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] T.EDU> 12.01.2004 16:41 Bitte antworten an "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" You're right, I hadn't noticed that. The number of files should have been the same. Regards, Alexander Alexander Verkooijen Senior Systems Programmer High Performance Computing SARA Computing & Networking Services > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:35 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Export / Import > > > That was my original assumption but if you look at the 'q occ' results > there is a discrepancy in the number of files as well. That is my main > concern. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > > > "Alexander > Verkooijen" To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: > L> Subject: Re: > Export / Import > Sent by: "ADSM: > Dist Stor > Manager" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > .EDU> > 01/12/2004 10:30 > AM > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor > Manager" > > > > > I'm not sure but since the physical space occupied decreases > could it be that the export/import process reconstruct the > aggregates and thus removes any 'holes' you may have had > in your aggregates on the OS/390 server? > > Regards, > > Alexander > > > Alexander Verkooijen > Senior Systems Programmer > High Performance Computing > SARA Computing & Networking Services > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:05 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Export / Import > > > > > > Good morning everyone, > > > > We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running > > on OS/390 2.10 > > to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using > > the server to > > server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing > > discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an > > example from a 'Q > > OCC" command: > > > > > > q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) > > > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of > Physical > > Logical > > Name Pool Name Files > Space > > Space > > > Occupied > > Occupied > > > (MB) > > (MB) > > -- -- - -- - > - > > - > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 > 1,950.01 > > 1,870.58 > > STK9840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 > 2.06 > > 1.90 > > UP_DIRE- > > CTORIES > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 > 1,949.20 > > 1,869.93 > > UP_STK9- > > 840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 > 35,257.46 > > 35,020.67 > > STK9840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 > 0.82 > > 0.77 > > UP_DIRE- > > CTORIES > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 > 35,257.18 > > 35,020.44 > > UP_STK9- > > 840 > > > > > > q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) > > > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical > > Logical > >Name ool NameFiles Space O > > Space Oc > > ccupied > > cupied ( > > > (MB) > > MB) > > -- -- - -- - > - > > - > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$
Re: Export / Import
When I have done server-to-server EXPORT/IMPORT to servers with incompatible media types, there were some differences in the logical/physical space occupied on the target server. I assume that was due to differences in how blocks are formatted with the different media, because testing restores worked fine, and I got exactly the same number of files on the source and target servers. But your results are more disturbing, because the number of FILES is different on the source and target server. Clearly there are files (or objects) missing. Some things to check that can affect the number of files after an IMPORT: 1) Did you specify ALLDATA or ALLACTIVE on your EXPORT NODE command? 2) Are ALL management classes/copy groups EXACTLY the same on the source and target server, including the management class the directories will bind to? If not, repeat the IMPORT with them EXACTLY the same. 3) Did EXPIRATION run on the target server before you took these statistics, possibly deleting a lot of files? 4) Did you ever run CLEAN BACKUPGROUPS on your 4.2.x server? If not, (and you backup WIn2K clients) I wonder if there are some "dead/disconnected" files that were not really accessible and therefore did not export. If you check all those things and still have no answer, what I would do is pick a couple of filespaces, run SELECT to dump the contents of the BACKUPS table for each of those filespaces, and write a script to compare the two. That should give you an idea of which files are missing from the target server. If the results still don't make sense, I would open a PMR with IBM. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Nick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Export / Import Good morning everyone, We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running on OS/390 2.10 to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using the server to server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an example from a 'Q OCC" command: q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical Logical Name Pool Name Files Space Space Occupied Occupied (MB) (MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 1,870.58 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 1.90 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 1,869.93 UP_STK9- 840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 35,020.67 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 0.77 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 35,257.18 35,020.44 UP_STK9- 840 q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical Logical Name ool NameFiles Space O Space Oc ccupied cupied ( (MB) MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian Brian L. Nick Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions The Phoenix Companies Inc. 100 Bright Meadow Blvd Enfield CT. 06082-1900 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE: (860)403-2281 *** CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is intended only for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and any use, review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipien
Re: Export / Import
You're right, I hadn't noticed that. The number of files should have been the same. Regards, Alexander Alexander Verkooijen Senior Systems Programmer High Performance Computing SARA Computing & Networking Services > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:35 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Export / Import > > > That was my original assumption but if you look at the 'q occ' results > there is a discrepancy in the number of files as well. That is my main > concern. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > > > "Alexander > Verkooijen" To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: > L> Subject: Re: > Export / Import > Sent by: "ADSM: > Dist Stor > Manager" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > .EDU> > 01/12/2004 10:30 > AM > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor > Manager" > > > > > I'm not sure but since the physical space occupied decreases > could it be that the export/import process reconstruct the > aggregates and thus removes any 'holes' you may have had > in your aggregates on the OS/390 server? > > Regards, > > Alexander > > > Alexander Verkooijen > Senior Systems Programmer > High Performance Computing > SARA Computing & Networking Services > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:05 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Export / Import > > > > > > Good morning everyone, > > > > We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running > > on OS/390 2.10 > > to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using > > the server to > > server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing > > discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an > > example from a 'Q > > OCC" command: > > > > > > q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) > > > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of > Physical > > Logical > > Name Pool Name Files > Space > > Space > > > Occupied > > Occupied > > > (MB) > > (MB) > > -- -- - -- - > - > > - > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 > 1,950.01 > > 1,870.58 > > STK9840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 > 2.06 > > 1.90 > > UP_DIRE- > > CTORIES > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 > 1,949.20 > > 1,869.93 > > UP_STK9- > > 840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 > 35,257.46 > > 35,020.67 > > STK9840 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 > 0.82 > > 0.77 > > UP_DIRE- > > CTORIES > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 > 35,257.18 > > 35,020.44 > > UP_STK9- > > 840 > > > > > > q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) > > > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical > > Logical > >Name ool NameFiles Space O > > Space Oc > > ccupied > > cupied ( > > > (MB) > > MB) > > -- -- - -- - > - > > - > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 > 1,144.67 > > 1,144.66 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 > 1,144.67 > > 1,144.66 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 > 4,738.94 > > 4,738.92 > > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 > 4,738.94 > > 4,738.92 > > > > Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? > > Any help is > > greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > >Brian > > > > > > > > > > Brian L. Nick > > Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions > > The Phoenix Companies Inc. > > 100 Bright Meadow B
Re: Export / Import
That was my original assumption but if you look at the 'q occ' results there is a discrepancy in the number of files as well. That is my main concern. Thanks, Brian "Alexander Verkooijen" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: L> Subject: Re: Export / Import Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/12/2004 10:30 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" I'm not sure but since the physical space occupied decreases could it be that the export/import process reconstruct the aggregates and thus removes any 'holes' you may have had in your aggregates on the OS/390 server? Regards, Alexander Alexander Verkooijen Senior Systems Programmer High Performance Computing SARA Computing & Networking Services > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Export / Import > > > Good morning everyone, > > We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running > on OS/390 2.10 > to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using > the server to > server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing > discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an > example from a 'Q > OCC" command: > > > q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical > Logical > Name Pool Name Files Space > Space > Occupied > Occupied > (MB) > (MB) > -- -- - -- - - > - > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 > 1,870.58 > STK9840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 > 1.90 > UP_DIRE- > CTORIES > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 > 1,869.93 > UP_STK9- > 840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 > 35,020.67 > STK9840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 > 0.77 > UP_DIRE- > CTORIES > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 35,257.18 > 35,020.44 > UP_STK9- > 840 > > > q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical > Logical >Name ool NameFiles Space O > Space Oc > ccupied > cupied ( > (MB) > MB) > -- -- - -- - - > - > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 1,144.67 > 1,144.66 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 1,144.67 > 1,144.66 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 4,738.94 > 4,738.92 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 4,738.94 > 4,738.92 > > Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? > Any help is > greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, >Brian > > > > > Brian L. Nick > Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions > The Phoenix Companies Inc. > 100 Bright Meadow Blvd > Enfield CT. 06082-1900 > > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PHONE: (860)403-2281 > > > > > ** > * > CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is > intended only for > the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, > confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are > hereby notified that you have received this document in > error, and any use, > review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify the sender > immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and > destroy any and > all copies of this communication. > > ***
Re: Export / Import
I'm not sure but since the physical space occupied decreases could it be that the export/import process reconstruct the aggregates and thus removes any 'holes' you may have had in your aggregates on the OS/390 server? Regards, Alexander Alexander Verkooijen Senior Systems Programmer High Performance Computing SARA Computing & Networking Services > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brian L. Nick > Sent: maandag 12 januari 2004 16:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Export / Import > > > Good morning everyone, > > We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running > on OS/390 2.10 > to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using > the server to > server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing > discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an > example from a 'Q > OCC" command: > > > q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical > Logical > Name Pool Name Files Space > Space > Occupied > Occupied > (MB) > (MB) > -- -- - -- - - > - > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 > 1,870.58 > STK9840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 > 1.90 > UP_DIRE- > CTORIES > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 > 1,869.93 > UP_STK9- > 840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 > 35,020.67 > STK9840 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 > 0.77 > UP_DIRE- > CTORIES > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 35,257.18 > 35,020.44 > UP_STK9- > 840 > > > q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) > > Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical > Logical >Name ool NameFiles Space O > Space Oc > ccupied > cupied ( > (MB) > MB) > -- -- - -- - - > - > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 1,144.67 > 1,144.66 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 1,144.67 > 1,144.66 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 4,738.94 > 4,738.92 > PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 4,738.94 > 4,738.92 > > Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? > Any help is > greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, >Brian > > > > > Brian L. Nick > Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions > The Phoenix Companies Inc. > 100 Bright Meadow Blvd > Enfield CT. 06082-1900 > > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PHONE: (860)403-2281 > > > > > ** > * > CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is > intended only for > the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, > confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are > hereby notified that you have received this document in > error, and any use, > review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify the sender > immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and > destroy any and > all copies of this communication. > > ** > * >
Antwort: Export / Import
Hi Brian, I have experienced the same discrepancies as you did at migration from 5.1.6.1 to 5.2.1.3 on AIX 5.2 ML02. I don't know where these differences are comming from. I have wrote a simple sql query to count the number of backup and archive files in both ITSM servers (5.1.6.1 and 5.2.1.3). The number of files for backup and archive have been exactly the same. After that I have spoken to IBM but did not really got an answer that was satisfying. Anyway, collegues of mine did serveral restores in a test system and everything was fine. But if you will find out more, or IBM is able to explain that to you, I'm interested to 'hear' about the results. regards, Rainer (Embedded UPM-Kymmene image moved IT Services Augsburg Office to file: Rainer Holzinger, TSM/AIX pic18712.gif)Administrator Georg-Haindl-Str. 5, D-86153 Augsburg Tel. +49 821 3109 590 Fax. +49 821 3109 115 Mobile +49 170 4037 616 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian L. Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NIXWM.COM> Kopie: Gesendet von:Thema: Export / Import "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] T.EDU> 12.01.2004 16:05 Bitte antworten an "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Good morning everyone, We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running on OS/390 2.10 to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using the server to server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an example from a 'Q OCC" command: q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical Logical Name Pool Name Files Space Space Occupied Occupied (MB) (MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 1,870.58 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 1.90 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 1,869.93 UP_STK9- 840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 35,020.67 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 0.77 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 35,257.18 35,020.44 UP_STK9- 840 q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical Logical Name ool NameFiles Space O Space Oc ccupied cupied ( (MB) MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian Brian L. Nick Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions The Phoenix Companies Inc. 100 Bright Meadow Blvd Enfield CT. 06082-1900 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE: (860)403-2281 *** CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is intended only for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and any use, review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy any and all copies of this communication. ***
Re: ANU2508E wrong write state
"Wrong write state" is a message that is left over from the Oracle Agent days...it should now read "Wrong state". This message indicates that Oracle made a call to Data Protection for Oracle that is out of sequence from their stated protocol. Because there is nothing in the error log preceding this it is not very helpful. The other error in the error might be of concern, again it depends on the context that these errors were written to the log. I would suggest using IBM/Tivoli support to help solve this one so that we can collect the proper traces and logs and put this into context. Regards, Neil Rasmussen Software Development Data Protection for Oracle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Wholey, Joseph (IDS DM&DS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/10/2004 09:23 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject ANU2508E wrong write state Need help... I'm getting this message prior to the TDP for Oracle backup failure. It transmits appx 6G over 3 channels, but then generates the following errors in the tdpoerror.log. I'm not that concerned with the ANU2602E or the ANS4994S, but I am concerned with the ANU2508E. Also, there is very little documentation on the error. We (tsm admins) did not change any configuration on our side, and the DBA's state they made no changes on their side. There is nothing in the actlog to indicate there is a problem. My initial question is, "what is in the "Wrong write state""? And my next question is, how do I resolve? Before I call support, does anyone have any insight? OS platform SunOS 5.8 Oracle 8.1.7 TDPv2.2.1 TSM Server V5,2,0.0 running on zOS 01/10/04 09:26:59 ANU2508E Wrong write state 01/10/04 09:28:30 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9720.515063712 was not found on the TSM Server 01/10/04 09:28:30 ANS4994S TDP Oracle SUN ANU0599 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9720.515063712 was not fou nd on the TSM Server 01/10/04 09:28:31 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9719.515063712 was not found on the TSM Server 01/10/04 09:28:31 ANS4994S TDP Oracle SUN ANU0599 ANU2602E The object /adsmorc//arch.BFRMDM.9719.515063712 was not fou nd on the TSM Server Regards, Joe
Export / Import
Good morning everyone, We are in the process of migrating from TSM 4.2.1.9 running on OS/390 2.10 to TSM 5.2 on AIX 5.1. Due to incompatible media we are using the server to server export import process to move node data, however I am seeing discrepancies in the amounts of data to move. Here is an example from a 'Q OCC" command: q occ PHLHR (os/390 2.10 TSM 4.2 ) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage Number of Physical Logical Name Pool Name Files Space Space Occupied Occupied (MB) (MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 OFFSITE_- 14,214 1,950.01 1,870.58 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 928 2.06 1.90 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 STD_BACK- 13,286 1,949.20 1,869.93 UP_STK9- 840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 OFFSITE_- 25,447 35,257.46 35,020.67 STK9840 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 336 0.82 0.77 UP_DIRE- CTORIES PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 STD_BACK- 25,111 35,257.18 35,020.44 UP_STK9- 840 q occ (AIX 5.1 TSM 5.2) Node Name Type FilespaceFSID Storage P Number of Physical Logical Name ool NameFiles Space O Space Oc ccupied cupied ( (MB) MB) -- -- - -- - - - PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODCSP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\c$ 1 PRODOCP11,810 1,144.67 1,144.66 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODCSP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 PHLHR Bkup \\phlhr\d$ 2 PRODOCP15,472 4,738.94 4,738.92 Is there a known issue with exporting data from 4.2 to 5.2? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brian Brian L. Nick Systems Technician - Enterprise Storage Solutions The Phoenix Companies Inc. 100 Bright Meadow Blvd Enfield CT. 06082-1900 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE: (860)403-2281 *** CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is intended only for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and any use, review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy any and all copies of this communication. ***
Re: ANR9999D ssrecons.c(2412) & (2398) errors in Actlog
... >o - ANRD ssrecons.c(2412) and (2398) ... David - The numbers in parentheses don't much matter, as they are just the source code line numbers involved with the message for that VRML instance of the software (noted in ADSM QuickFacts). What you need, for a better (but perhaps still limited) sense of the error is the text that should accompany the message number. You may have to do 'Set CONTEXTmessaging ON' to get it. Thereafter, the IBM database can be searched for possible causes and cures. Richard Sims, BU
Re: Strange Policy Domain Question
>Well that looks like it could well be the exp0lnation, but still doesn't >make any real sense. Surely If I create a new man class and specify exactly >what I want to bind it to, that should be it. Farren - You want it to be as simple at specifying the Mgmtclass on the Include, but there are mitigating realities. Refer to the DIRMc documentation, plus some of the excellent postings in the list archives. Richard Sims, BU
Re: Strange Policy Domain Question
The reason that TSM works this way is to help ensure that when restoring deleted files, at least the most recent directory for those files will still be available. For example, suppose you had a directory structure like this: c:\mydir\file1 c:\mydir\file2 Suppose you have two management classes, A and B. A is the default, and has a RETONLY setting of 10 days. B has a RETONLY setting of 30 days. Now suppose (for whatever reason) you decide to bind file2 to management class B. If TSM did not behave as I describe, then you have this: c:\mydir bound to A c:\mydir\file1 bound to A c:\mydir\file2 bound to B Next, you delete the c:\mydir directory (and its files, of course). The next incremental backup detects that these files are deleted, and marks the backup versions inactive. In 10 days, the backups for c:\mydir and c:\mydir\file1 will be deleted from TSM's inventory. In 30 days, the backup for c:\mydir\file2 will be deleted from TSM's inventory. Now suppose it is 15 days later and you wish to restore c:\mydir\file2. The following would be true: - You won't be able to restore via the GUI, because using the GUI to navigate to c:\mydir\file2 means that you need to be able to first navigate to c:\mydir. Since no backups exist for c:\mydir, you will not be able to navigate to it, and thus you will not be able to navigate to c:\mydir\file2. - You can restore c:\mydir\file2 via the command line, but the c:\mydir will be created with default attributes vs. restored from TSM's inventory with its original attributes (because no backup for it exists). So this is why we make TSM behave the way it does. You could use DIRMC to tell TSM to bind the directories to your STANDARD management class, but I would not recommend it unless you have a very controlled environment, and you understand and are willing to accept the ramifications as I have described above. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Farren Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 07:11 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Strange Policy Domain Question Hi there Well that looks like it could well be the exp0lnation, but still doesn't make any real sense. Surely If I create a new man class and specify exactly what I want to bind it to, that should be it. Anyway, thanks to all for the answers. All the best Farren :) |++---| || Andrew Raibeck | | || <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | || Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor| To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Manager" | cc: | || <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Subject:Re: Strange | ||| Policy Domain Question | || 01/12/2004 01:48 PM | | || Please respond to "ADSM: Dist| | || Stor Manager"| | ||| | |++---| > ... all clients see a lot of files being rebound. See http://msgs.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0110/1061.html for the likely explanation. Less likely (but not inconceivable) is that you inadvertently assigned the new management class as the default management class. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Farren Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 03:19 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Strange Policy Domain Question Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain NameSTANDARD Policy Set NameSTANDARD Mgmt Class NameRETDEL751 Copy Group NameSTANDARD Versions Data Exists3 Versions Data Deleted1 Retain Extra Versions180 Retain Only Version750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and
Re: dsmaccnt.log and lan-free transfers
did you check your dsm.sys file to see if landfress is YES Roland Priest email [EMAIL PROTECTED] office 856-489-4255 office 1800-767-5822 ext.4255 Cell 856-296-6086 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/08/04 11:01AM >>> Am I right in finding that backup data transferred via a lan-free backup does not show up in the dsmaccnt.log in field 17, total number of backup data in kilobyes sent to the tsm server? Thanks, Matt. ___ Disclaimer Notice __ This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us, delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies. Any distribution or copying without our prior permission is prohibited. Internet communications are not always secure and therefore the Powergen Group does not accept legal responsibility for this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Powergen Group. Registered addresses: Powergen UK plc, 53 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1SL Registered in England & Wales No. 2366970 Powergen Retail Limited, Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8LG. Registered in England and Wales No: 3407430 Telephone +44 (0) 2476 42 4000 Fax +44 (0) 2476 42 5432
Re: Strange Policy Domain Question
Hi there Well that looks like it could well be the exp0lnation, but still doesn't make any real sense. Surely If I create a new man class and specify exactly what I want to bind it to, that should be it. Anyway, thanks to all for the answers. All the best Farren :) |++---| || Andrew Raibeck | | || <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | || Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Manager" | cc: | || <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Subject: Re: Strange | ||| Policy Domain Question | || 01/12/2004 01:48 PM | | || Please respond to "ADSM: Dist| | || Stor Manager"| | ||| | |++---| > ... all clients see a lot of files being rebound. See http://msgs.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0110/1061.html for the likely explanation. Less likely (but not inconceivable) is that you inadvertently assigned the new management class as the default management class. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Farren Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 03:19 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Strange Policy Domain Question Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain Name STANDARD Policy Set Name STANDARD Mgmt Class Name RETDEL751 Copy Group Name STANDARD Versions Data Exists 3 Versions Data Deleted 1 Retain Extra Versions 180 Retain Only Version 750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. * * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. ***
Re: Fw: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive
Your objects should be blank (not comma) delimited, just as you would do if you issued the archive from the backup-archive command line interface. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Joni Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 07:06 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Fw: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive Hello everyone! I was just wondering if anyone would happen to know what I am doing wrong with the archive of /p01 & /p02? Is my syntax incorrect? I know that the error message says that the directory path wasn't found. Does that mean that TSM couldn't find the path or could it mean that the syntax for the objects I want to backup is wrong? Thanks in advance!!! Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded by Joni Moyer/ISG/CORP/Highmark on 01/12/2004 09:04 AM - Joni Moyer/ISG/CORP/Hi ghmark To Melissa Fielding/ISG/CORP/Highmark 01/12/2004 09:00 cc AM Subject Re: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive (Document link: Joni Moyer) Description/P01 & /P02 filespace archive Action |--| | [X] ARCHIVE | | [ ] INCREMENTAL | | [ ] SELECTIVE| | [ ] IMAGEBACKUP | | [ ] RESTORE | | [ ] IMAGERESTORE | | [ ] RETRIEVE | | [ ] COMMAND | | [ ] MACRO| |--| Options-archmc=ORA0010 -subdir=yes Objects/p01/,/p02/ Priority 5 Start date 11/16/2003 Start time 00:00:00 Duration 1 Duration units || | [X] HOURS | | [ ] MINUTES| | [ ] DAYS | | [ ] INDEFINITE | || Period 1 Period units |-| | [X] DAYS| | [ ] HOURS | | [ ] WEEKS | | [ ] MONTHS | | [ ] YEARS | | [ ] ONETIME | |-| Day of Week|---| | [X] SUNDAY| | [ ] ANY | | [ ] WEEKDAY | | [ ] WEEKEND | | [ ] MONDAY| | [ ] TUESDAY | | [ ] WEDNESDAY | | [ ] THURSDAY | | [ ] FRIDAY| | [ ] SATURDAY | |---| Expiration Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Melissa Fielding/ISG/CORP /Highmark To Joni 01/12/2004 08:55 Moyer/ISG/CORP/[EMAIL PROTECTED] AMes cc Gary J Lyon/ISG/CORP/[EMAIL PROTECTED] s Subject Re: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive (Document link: Joni Moyer) Hi Joni! Here is what I see: 01/11/04 00:07:24 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT BEGIN DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02 01/11/04 00:00:00 01/11/04 00:07:24 ANS1076E *** Directory path not found *** 01/11/04 00:07:27 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS BEGIN 01/11/04 00:07:27 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT END DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02 01/11/04 00:00:00 01/11/04 00:07:27 ANS1512E Scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02' failed. Return code = 12. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Sending results for scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02'. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Results sent to server for scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02'. 01/11/04 00:07:27 ANS1483I Schedule log pruning started. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Schedule Log Prune: 2019 lines processed.
Fw: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive
Hello everyone! I was just wondering if anyone would happen to know what I am doing wrong with the archive of /p01 & /p02? Is my syntax incorrect? I know that the error message says that the directory path wasn't found. Does that mean that TSM couldn't find the path or could it mean that the syntax for the objects I want to backup is wrong? Thanks in advance!!! Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded by Joni Moyer/ISG/CORP/Highmark on 01/12/2004 09:04 AM - Joni Moyer/ISG/CORP/Hi ghmark To Melissa Fielding/ISG/CORP/Highmark 01/12/2004 09:00 cc AM Subject Re: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive (Document link: Joni Moyer) Description/P01 & /P02 filespace archive Action |--| | [X] ARCHIVE | | [ ] INCREMENTAL | | [ ] SELECTIVE| | [ ] IMAGEBACKUP | | [ ] RESTORE | | [ ] IMAGERESTORE | | [ ] RETRIEVE | | [ ] COMMAND | | [ ] MACRO| |--| Options-archmc=ORA0010 -subdir=yes Objects/p01/,/p02/ Priority 5 Start date 11/16/2003 Start time 00:00:00 Duration 1 Duration units || | [X] HOURS | | [ ] MINUTES| | [ ] DAYS | | [ ] INDEFINITE | || Period 1 Period units |-| | [X] DAYS| | [ ] HOURS | | [ ] WEEKS | | [ ] MONTHS | | [ ] YEARS | | [ ] ONETIME | |-| Day of Week|---| | [X] SUNDAY| | [ ] ANY | | [ ] WEEKDAY | | [ ] WEEKEND | | [ ] MONDAY| | [ ] TUESDAY | | [ ] WEDNESDAY | | [ ] THURSDAY | | [ ] FRIDAY| | [ ] SATURDAY | |---| Expiration Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Melissa Fielding/ISG/CORP /Highmark To Joni 01/12/2004 08:55 Moyer/ISG/CORP/[EMAIL PROTECTED] AMes cc Gary J Lyon/ISG/CORP/[EMAIL PROTECTED] s Subject Re: /p01 & /p02 weekly archive (Document link: Joni Moyer) Hi Joni! Here is what I see: 01/11/04 00:07:24 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT BEGIN DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02 01/11/04 00:00:00 01/11/04 00:07:24 ANS1076E *** Directory path not found *** 01/11/04 00:07:27 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS BEGIN 01/11/04 00:07:27 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT END DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02 01/11/04 00:00:00 01/11/04 00:07:27 ANS1512E Scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02' failed. Return code = 12. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Sending results for scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02'. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Results sent to server for scheduled event 'DISASTER_RECOVERY_P01_P02'. 01/11/04 00:07:27 ANS1483I Schedule log pruning started. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Schedule Log Prune: 2019 lines processed. 170 lines pruned. 01/11/04 00:07:27 ANS1484I Schedule log pruning finished successfully. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Querying server for next scheduled event. 01/11/04 00:07:27 Node Name: FJSU101 01/11/04 00:07:27 Session established with server ADSMB: MVS 01/11/04 00:07:27 Server Version 5, Release 1, Level 6.2 01/11/04 00:07:27 Data compression forced off by the server 01/11/04 00:07:27 Server date/time: 01/11/04 00:07:36 Last access: 01/11/04 00:07:33 What does the command you are using look like? Thanks! Melissa Melissa Fielding Open Systems Ctrst 2BL2 (717)302-4170
Re: Strange Policy Domain Question
> ... all clients see a lot of files being rebound. See http://msgs.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0110/1061.html for the likely explanation. Less likely (but not inconceivable) is that you inadvertently assigned the new management class as the default management class. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Farren Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/2004 03:19 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Strange Policy Domain Question Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain NameSTANDARD Policy Set NameSTANDARD Mgmt Class NameRETDEL751 Copy Group NameSTANDARD Versions Data Exists3 Versions Data Deleted1 Retain Extra Versions180 Retain Only Version750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. *
ANR9999D ssrecons.c(2412) & (2398) errors in Actlog
All, Hmn, funny one this. o - Win2K AS, Compaq/HP DL380 G2, 5.1.6.2 TSM Server, DLT drives. Getting ANRD errors in actlog every 3 to 30 minutes - i.e. *loads* of them: o - ANRD ssrecons.c(2412) and (2398) Had a quick look on the list archive, RBS's substantial-facts and big-blue.com but haven't found any mentions of these specific 'ssrecons.c' numbers. Various other 'ssrecons.c' articles mention everything from 'uselargecommbuffers' to 'errors reading two sided optical media', but nothing that quite fits the error/line number (i.e. 2412 or 2398) I'm seeing. They've been occurring in the actlog for as far back as I can see on this TSM server with a frequency of every 2 or 30 to every 30 or so minutes. I'm feeling that they might be tape-drive related, but I can't see any evidence to back this up... I haven't noticed any other problems on the server, however. Anyone else seen these? Rgds, David McClelland Management Systems Integrator Global Management Systems Reuters 85 Fleet Street London EC4P 4AJ E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reuters Messaging [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.
Re: Strange Policy Domain Question
Do you have a directory statement. I don't remember the exact wordage but DSMC or something like that in the .sys file. If not then what you are probably seeing is directories being rebound to the new class. If there is not a DSMC command then directories bind to the class with the largest retension. Could this be what is happening? -- Phillip Ford Senior Software Specialist Corporate Computer Center Schering-Plough Corp. (901) 320-4462 (901) 320-4856 FAX [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Farren Minns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Strange Policy Domain Question Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain Name STANDARD Policy Set Name STANDARD Mgmt Class Name RETDEL751 Copy Group Name STANDARD Versions Data Exists 3 Versions Data Deleted 1 Retain Extra Versions 180 Retain Only Version 750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. * * This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.
Re: Backup of all-local -systemonject
Tony, thanks for your advice. I think tsm does not use c:\adsm.sys\...\* any more to store the system objects, at least since version 5. Exception for locked files. René LAMBELET NESTEC SA GLOBE - Global Business Excellence Central Support Center SD/ESN Av. Nestlé 55 CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland) tél +41 (0)21 924 35 43 fax +41 (0)21 924 13 69 local K4-104 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. -Original Message- From: Tony Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday,9. January 2004 17:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup of all-local -systemonject Why not just explicitly exclude "c:\adsm.sys\...\*" and put "domain c: d: e: f:" in a secure dsm.opt and take "execute" off dsm.exe for the users? Tony Morgan Fortis Bank UK This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. The content of this e-mail may have been changed without the consent of the originator. The information supplied must be viewed in this context. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify our Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 20-7444-8444. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
Re: Policy Domain & Include Statement Question
Hi, I think it is because default directories are bound to the management class having the longest retention period. Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Farren Minns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: maandag 12 januari 2004 11:49 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Policy Domain & Include Statement Question (I'm sending this again because it keeps getting returned telling me I have already sent the same message. But I wrote this this morning for the very first time, so that can't be. Thanks. Farren) Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain Name STANDARD Policy Set Name STANDARD Mgmt Class Name RETDEL751 Copy Group Name STANDARD Versions Data Exists 3 Versions Data Deleted 1 Retain Extra Versions 180 Retain Only Version 750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. *
Policy Domain & Include Statement Question
(I'm sending this again because it keeps getting returned telling me I have already sent the same message. But I wrote this this morning for the very first time, so that can't be. Thanks. Farren) Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain Name STANDARD Policy Set Name STANDARD Mgmt Class Name RETDEL751 Copy Group Name STANDARD Versions Data Exists 3 Versions Data Deleted 1 Retain Extra Versions 180 Retain Only Version 750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. *
Strange Policy Domain Question
Hi All Running TSM 5.1.6.2 on Solaris 2.7 I have been trying to add a new management class to just one dir and all sub-dir's on one of our Solaris clients. I have been doing this with the following steps :- 1) Create a new management class called RETDEL750 under the STANDARD policy domain. The STANDARD backup copy group under the new man class looks as follows :- Policy Domain Name STANDARD Policy Set Name STANDARD Mgmt Class Name RETDEL751 Copy Group Name STANDARD Versions Data Exists 3 Versions Data Deleted 1 Retain Extra Versions 180 Retain Only Version 750 Ok, so I'm happy that this means keep files deleted from the client backed up for 750 days. 2) Now, I validate and then activate the STANDARD policy set. This works fine. 3) Assign the new management class to the required dir with an include statement. As follows :- include /app/production/.../* retdel750 Now, the problem I have is that the backup for the following night shows some strange behaviour for all clients using the STANDARD policy domain in that all clients see a lot of files being rebound. But I would expect to only see rebound files for the client and dir with the include statement. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here (or just being stupid and doing something wrong)? Many thanks in advance Farren Minns - John Wiley & Sons Ltd * This email transmission is confidential and intended for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any attachment, or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check, as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. *
Re: AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.2, 64 bit Kernel {Scanned}
Hi Marcel,
it worked .
Thanks.
ABP / USZO CIS / BS / TB / Storage Management
Telefoon : +31(0)45 579 7773
Fax : +31(0)45 579 3990
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Centrale Mailbox : Centrale Mailbox - BS Storage (eumbx05)
Tech Support: "Have you made backups of your software and data?"
Customer: "I didn't know it had a reverse."
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Marcel J.E. Mol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 9 januari 2004 20:34
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.2, 64 bit Kernel {Scanned}
Bert,
I had similar problems (although it was a AIX 5.1 system).
I ended up running the install from the command line in the
directory containing the updates and then it worked:
/usr/lib/instl/sm_inst installp_cmd -a -d . -f _update_all -c -N -g -Y
Actually grabbed this from what smit tells me with the F6 command.
-Marcel
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Moonen, LJL (Bert) wrote:
> Yes,
>
> I accepted the license agreement to YES
> and I installed the filesets through smitty.
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 9 januari 2004 14:46
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.2, 64 bit Kernel {Scanned}
>
>
> Hi Bert!
> >From the server readme file:
>
> *
> *
> *
> * Even though you already accepted the license agreement when you
installed
> *
> * level 5.2.0.0, install of this level will fail unless you (re) accept
the
> *
> * license agreement. These license agreement files are saved in the
> directory *
> * /usr/swlag/$LANG/ if you wish to browse the license agreement at a later
> time *
> *
> *
>
> *
> Did you set "ACCEPT new license agreements" to YES when you installed the
> fileset through SMITTY?
> Kindest regards,
> Eric van Loon
> KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Moonen, LJL (Bert) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 14:38
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.2, 64 bit Kernel {Scanned}
>
>
> I need some information,
>
> we are running on AIX 5.2 with TSM 5.2.1, 64 bit kernel.
> When I upgrade to TSM 5.2.2, I get a message LICENSE AGREEMENT FAILURES
on
> fileset tivoli.tsm.server.com.
> I'm now running the new TSM 5.2.2 without this fileset. It looks fine but
i
> have doubts...
> My questions is; CAN I RUN WITHOUT THIS FILESET
>
> The README.LIC says
> For a 64 bit kernel environment:
>
> - tivoli.tsm.devices.acslsSTK Silo Support (optional)
>
> - tivoli.tsm.devices.aix5.rte Device Support - AIX 5.1 or 5.2,
32/64bit
>
> - tivoli.tsm.server.com Server samples, NetBios, APPC
> communications
> - tivoli.tsm.server.aix5.rte64Server runtime - AIX 5.1 or 5.2, 64bit
>
> - tivoli.tsm.server.webadmin Web administrator (optional)
>
> - tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.server Message Library and help
>
> - tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.devicesSMIT menu catalogs
>
> - tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.webhelpWeb administrator help
>
>
> We are not using Netbios nor APPC communications, only TCP/IP.
>
> I have installed this filesets;
>
> tivoli.tsm.devices.aix5.rte
> @ 5.2.2.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Device Support runtime
> tivoli.tsm.license.aix5.rte64
> @ 5.2.0.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager License Registration
> tivoli.tsm.license.cert
> @ 5.2.0.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager License Certificates
> tivoli.tsm.loc.server.ela
> @ 5.2.0.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server E-Lic
> tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.devices
> @ 5.2.2.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Devices SMIT Menus, US English
> tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.server
> @ 5.2.1.3 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager ServerMessages, US English
> tivoli.tsm.msg.en_US.webhelp
> @ 5.2.2.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Web Admin Help, US English
> tivoli.tsm.server.aix5.rte64
> @ 5.2.2.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server Runtime
> tivoli.tsm.server.com
> @ 5.2.0.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server common services
> @ 5.2.1.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server common services
> + 5.2.2.0 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server common services
>
> The last fileset is my problem, i cannot install this
> one, then i get
> the message LICENSE AGREEMENT FAILURES on fileset tivoli.tsm.server.com
>
>
> ABP / USZO CIS / BS / TB / Storage Management
> Telefoon : +31(0)45 579 7773
> Fax : +31(0)45 579 3990
> Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Centrale Mailbox : Centrale Mailbox - BS Storage (eumbx05)
>
> Tech Support: "Have you made backups of your software and data?"
> Customer: "I didn't know it had a reverse."
>
>
>
>
>
=DISCLAIMER=
>
>
> De informatie in dit e-mailbericht is vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend bestemd
> voor de geadresseerde. Wanneer u dit bericht per abuis ontvangt, verzoeken
> wij u contact op te nemen met de afzender per
SV: Novell 4.11 clients
U welcome ;o) Regarding problems; Nothing special - but I must say I haven't tried to make a disaster recovery... Consider upgrading your NetWare to 5.1 or 6.X - else you wont get support from Novell or Tivoli if something goes wrong. Regards Flemming -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cynthia Leon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. januar 2004 14:53 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Novell 4.11 clients Thanks for responding Flemming. I just wanted to make sure that this TSM client could run with a TSM 5.2 server. Have you had any problems? Cynthia -Original Message- From: Hougaard.Flemming FHG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SV: Novell 4.11 clients Hi Cynthia I have been... whats your question? Flemming -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cynthia Leon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. januar 2004 16:06 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Novell 4.11 clients Is anyone running the TSM 4.2.1.29 client on Novell 4.11 servers and using a TSM V5.2 server? Thanks, Cynthia Leon == --- PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES DISCLAIMER --- This message originates from Presbyterian Healthcare Services or one of its affiliated organizations. It contains information, which may be confidential or privileged, and is intended only for the individual or entity named above. It is prohibited for anyone else to disclose, copy, distribute or use the contents of this message. All personal messages express views solely of the sender, which are not to be attributed to Presbyterian Healthcare Services or any of its affiliated organizations, and may not be distributed without this disclaimer. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==
