Re: ANR8420E IO Error
Perhaps an obvious question. do you have the TSMSCSI package installed? On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:21:15 +0530, Akash Jain wrote: Hi, Tried with the mentioned command also, still facing same error in device definition. DAT drive is working fine checked by taking backup on /dev/st0. Regards Akash Jain . -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of showersofblessings Sent: Monday, 16 May 2005 7:09 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: ANR8420E IO Error Hi, It seems like you forgot to define the path from the server to the tape drive, and the 2nd line doesn't quite look right to me. It should look like this: define drive manlib IBMDRV then define the path: define path server_name IBMDRV srctype=server desttype=drive library=manlib device=/dev/st0 That should do it. --- Akash Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am trying to define a drive in TSM level but getting the (ANR8420E) above-mentioned error. At OS level the tape drive has been defined in /dev directory as st0 (Seagate DAT 20/40, internal drive 4MM with IBM stamp, 9SP40-000). The working of DAT drive has been checked at OS level with the tar command. The series of commands used are:- 1 define library manlib libtype=manual 2 define drive manlib IBMDRV device=/dev/st0 Any suggestions are really appreciated. Regards Akash Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html Ian Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. -Dilbert
TSM 5.3 support with NT
Dear All, I am planning to upgrade our TSM server from 5.2 to 5.3 and I have NT clients that have TSM 5.1. Since TSM server supports only 5.3 and 5.2 client and since those clients versions don't support NT, how can I upgrade the server and keep the backup of the NT servers? Regards, Abdulaziz
Re: Tape Stuck in Remote Status, but no longer used by library sharer; what to do?
Thanks again, Richard! Others, see also note (below) from APAR IC40865. NOTE: The local fix describes a command that should only be used if a REMOTE volume no longer has valid data on it and can be considered a scratch volume. Once executed, any server could use the volume to overwrite any existing data. Use caution whenever you delete any volume history entry. Before invoking this command ensure that the libvolume is *NOT* used in *ANY* way by *ANY* remote (Library Sharing) TSM! DELete VOLHistory TODate=TODAY Type=REMOTE VOLume=z12345 FORCE=Yes removed the bogus REMOTE record from the LibMgr TSM's VolHistory for tape Z12345 which was no longer used by any LibSharer TSM. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693) Richard Sims wrote: Jim - This may not be of much help, but the Delete command in APAR description IC40865 may help in some cases. Richard Sims On May 20, 2005, at 5:47 PM, James R Owen wrote: Andy, et al. I have no solution, but found your email thread as I'm looking to solve exactly the same problem. It's a tough nut to crack! We have 6 tapes in a shared 3584 w/ exactly that problematic status: The Library Mgr TSM's VolHistory shows tape as PRIVATE,REMOTE owned by other TSM, but the other TSM's VolHist has long since finished with the tapes: two were obsolete DBB backups (probably cancelled/aborted) the other four show UNKNOWN in the devclass field (dunno why) I believe these tapes are stuck in a crack in the Share Library reality and are essentially lost unless someone knows now to remove the useless and inappropriate REMOTE records from the Library Mgr's VolHistory. If that can be accomplished, then we can UPDate LIBVolume STATUS=SCRatch to fix the problem. I've tried CHECKOut LIBVolume... at the Library Mgr TSM, but that didn't help. The Library Sharer TSM can not do the CHECKOut LIBVolume because the library is unknown. I think the tapes have fallen into a crack in TSM's reality. Anybody else have a better grip on this? If not, I'll open a PMR. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693) Andrew Carlson wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:27:39 -0500, Ochs, Duane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can do a delete volume ## discard=yes. This will delete all references to data on that volume from the TSM database. I had the volume checked in. The volume now shows up in q libv: tsm: TSMLIBMq libv 3584lib 110544 Library Name Volume Name Status Owner Last Use Home Device Element Type --- -- -- - --- -- 3584LIB 110544 Private TSMJ 1,0953592 But, since the volume does not show up in TSMJ (actually it was a database backup tape), I cannot delete it. Any ideas? -- Andy Carlson - Senior Technical Specialist BJC Healtcare
Re: Virtual tape libraries
Sorry in the last e-mail I meant you can alter this. TSM_User [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The VTL's that I have seen set the defaults to the size estimed to the drive as you suggest but all the ones I've seen you can later this. For intance on our EMC CDL's emulating LTO 2 tape drives we set the volume limit to 50 GB. Further most have a initial setting and incremental growth. Again on the CDL's the default is 5 GB. So even though a VTL volume could grow up to 50 GB it starts up at 5 GB and grows in those increments. So are you sure 2 GB is the limit or is that just the incremental growth? Wheelock, Michael D wrote: Hi, Most VTL's that I have encountered emulate a real tape drive (ie. Brand and model) and thus their cartridge size is based on this (ie. 200 GB for LTO1, etc). I would find out why this vtl has this limitation. As to the db growth, others may have a better idea, but I have always found that adding volumes wasn't nearly as big a deal as adding more backed up data (ie. If I bring in 20 more servers with 10,000's each, that overshadows anything else as far as the db is concerned). Michael Wheelock Integris Health -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Evans Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Virtual tape libraries I have been experimenting with a virtual tape library connected to TSM (Windows 2k3 5.1.6.3 server) All seems to work perfectly and TSM is none the wiser. However, The maximum cartridge size in this virtual library is 2GB. I am currently using LTO1 and getting upto 100 times this amount of data on one tape. My database is 56GB and I currently have approx 600 volumes My question is.. if I were to move to a virtual library and had to increase the number of my volumes by up to 10 times What impact would this have on my database ? Thanks in advance Jon Evans Storage Consultant KBR ** This e-mail may contain identifiable health information that is subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is intended to be for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail (reply). __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM more. Check it out!
Re: weird request
First let me say I really agree with Andrew. That being said, I believe robocopy 2003 has the ability to copy data based on last modified and last accessed dates. You can do either or both I believe. In order to accomplish what this customer wants you could first copy the stuff out using that feature, delete all the data and then copy it back. This is of course extremely risky so I would back it up first which would seem to negate the whole process. However, if your nice you could back the data up temporarily to a new node name of filespace and then if everything works after the delete and the copy back you could purge the data from TSM by deleting the node or filespace. Anyway, I've seen a similar request when moving data to new hardware. I've had a few customers clean house this way. Still, in all those cases they said back it up first so if we need it we can get it. Andrew Raibeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no filtering option in TSM to do this. Using the age of a file to determine whether to back it up is, in my own opinion, ill-advised. If the customer does not care to back up these files, then why not simply cut to the chase and delete them? After all, if the disk were to be lost tomorrow, they wouldn't be recoverable. If the customer balks at the idea of deleting them outright, then that would suggest a re-think of the backup strategy (what would the customer's reaction be if someone actually did this?) The good news is that if the files don't change, TSM's incremental approach will only back them up once (okay, twice if you back up your storage pools, which is recommended). Of course, some of these files are probably junk or temporary files that are no longer needed, in which case it might be worthwhile to comb through those files and clean up the truly unneeded ones. Just my own thoughts on the subject. :-) 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. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager wrote on 2005-05-20 10:30:47: Hi All, I received a weird request from potential customer. Because we will charge him per space occupied on our server, he wants to backup only files less than a year old. He doesn't want to go into each folder and try to find files that meet the criteria. I know that Arcserve has that filter option. I don't think that we can do it with TSM, but before give him an answer I thought I would check opinion of The List. Thanks in advance, Joe Crnjanski Infinity Network Solutions Inc. Phone: 416-235-0931 x26 Fax: 416-235-0265 Web: www.infinitynetwork.com - Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: weird request
This made me think as well you could use the robocopy command to run in preview mode to a log file I believe with the copy feature of last access or modify. This might give you a list of what data would not get backed up and thus give the customer something to go on. (I must really seem like a RoboCopy advocate. Well I've done a ton of file server migrations the past few years. Its incremental copy reminds me of TSM, without all the great bells and whistles of TSM of course ;-D). Richard Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 20, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Joe Crnjanski wrote: Hi All, I received a weird request from potential customer. Because we will charge him per space occupied on our server, he wants to backup only files less than a year old. He doesn't want to go into each folder and try to find files that meet the criteria. I know that Arcserve has that filter option. I don't think that we can do it with TSM, but before give him an answer I thought I would check opinion of The List. In Unix you could readily do for the home directory this via: find ~ -mtime -365 -print /tmp/files_list dsmc i -FILEList=/tmp/files_list (Resulting names containing spaces would require quoting; but that could be readily added via an appropriate command pipe-inserted between the 'find' and the redirect.) Something similar could be done in other environments. Another option for the user is the have the TSM client compress the data being sent to the TSM server. Yet another approach, even much simpler from the standpoint of the backup, is for the user to move his older, less relevant data into an oldies folder and Exclude that from backup. It's a common practice to move old data into a back room folder anyway. You could make it a site standard that user folders with a special oldies name would not be backed up, which would take care of things for this and similarly cheap users. The TSM client Expire command can be used to more quickly remove old stuff from server storage. Richard Sims - Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
