Re: Multiple Backup Streams with exchange.
maybe Resourceutilization parameter is what you need ? // g On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:21, Steven Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I continue to find new corners of this product to explore - or maybe its grope blindly in the dark ! I have a customer with an exchange cluster TDP 5.3.3.1 backing up to a Win 2k3 server running tsm 5.3.4. Storage agents are installed on both sides of the cluster at 5.3.4. Exchange backups work fine, but the mail store has grown and they are spilling into the online day - there are 4 drives available, but backups only use one. Maxnummp for the node is set to 4. I've been through the TDP for Exchange and Storage Agent manuals and can see nothing that addresses a number of parallel streams. I've tried searching but obviously haven't come up with the right set of keywords. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks Steve Steven Harris TSM Admin, Sydney Australia.
Multiple Backup Streams with exchange.
I continue to find new corners of this product to explore - or maybe its grope blindly in the dark ! I have a customer with an exchange cluster TDP 5.3.3.1 backing up to a Win 2k3 server running tsm 5.3.4. Storage agents are installed on both sides of the cluster at 5.3.4. Exchange backups work fine, but the mail store has grown and they are spilling into the online day - there are 4 drives available, but backups only use one. Maxnummp for the node is set to 4. I've been through the TDP for Exchange and Storage Agent manuals and can see nothing that addresses a number of parallel streams. I've tried searching but obviously haven't come up with the right set of keywords. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks Steve Steven Harris TSM Admin, Sydney Australia.
Re: Improving TSM performance - memory related setting
Currently the BUFPOOLSIZE is set to: BufPoolSize: 122,880 K The server has 3 Gb of memory. Is this something I can increase? Regards Paul Dudley Senior IT Systems Administrator ANL IT Operations Dept. ANL Container Line [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03-9257-0603 http://www.anl.com.au > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Skylar Thompson > Sent: Friday, 4 April 2008 1:05 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Improving TSM performance - memory related setting > > Paul Dudley wrote: > > If I recall correctly there is a TSM system setting that relates to the > > memory available on the server, and you can check and adjust this > > setting to improve performance of your TSM server. > > > > > > > > Can anyone remind me which setting it is? > > > > > > Are you thinking of BUFPOOLSIZE and LOGPOOLSIZE? The former controls > the > size of the database buffer pool (bounded only by the physical memory of > the machine), and the latter the size of the temporary transaction space > in the recovery log (up to 8192 pages IIRC). > > -- > -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 > -- University of Washington School of Medicine ANL DISCLAIMER This e-mail and any file attached is confidential, and intended solely to the named addressees. Any unauthorised dissemination or use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail from your system. Please do not copy, use or make reference to it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any person.
Re: Improving TSM performance - memory related setting
Paul Dudley wrote: If I recall correctly there is a TSM system setting that relates to the memory available on the server, and you can check and adjust this setting to improve performance of your TSM server. Can anyone remind me which setting it is? Are you thinking of BUFPOOLSIZE and LOGPOOLSIZE? The former controls the size of the database buffer pool (bounded only by the physical memory of the machine), and the latter the size of the temporary transaction space in the recovery log (up to 8192 pages IIRC). -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Improving TSM performance - memory related setting
If I recall correctly there is a TSM system setting that relates to the memory available on the server, and you can check and adjust this setting to improve performance of your TSM server. Can anyone remind me which setting it is? Regards Paul Dudley Senior IT Systems Administrator ANL IT Operations Dept. ANL Container Line [EMAIL PROTECTED] ANL DISCLAIMER This e-mail and any file attached is confidential, and intended solely to the named addressees. Any unauthorised dissemination or use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail from your system. Please do not copy, use or make reference to it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any person.
Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume
Update vol to access=readwrite and try the audit again. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jacquelin Bouchard Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:20 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume Hi Richard, I have tried to audit the volume: audit volume a00043 fix=yes Output: ANR2425E AUDIT VOLUME: Unable to access volume A00043 - access mode is set to "offsite". Jacquelin Bouchard At 15:35 2008-04-03 -0400, you wrote: >This volume is probably the victim of a TSM database inconsistency, >where an AUDit Volume will likely be needed to clear its problem. > >Richard Sims
Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume
Hi Richard, I have tried to audit the volume: audit volume a00043 fix=yes Output: ANR2425E AUDIT VOLUME: Unable to access volume A00043 - access mode is set to "offsite". Jacquelin Bouchard At 15:35 2008-04-03 -0400, you wrote: This volume is probably the victim of a TSM database inconsistency, where an AUDit Volume will likely be needed to clear its problem. Richard Sims
Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume
If your storage pool: TPCE_BCK_DATA_COPY has "Delay Period for Volume Reuse:" set to a value greater than zero (say 2 days), you will have to wait for 2 days until that volume is deleted by TSM, as per your request. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jacquelin Bouchard Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:23 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Problem is still there with a LTO volume 1) q vol a00043 f=d Output: Volume Name : A00043 Storage Pool Name : TPCE_BCK_DATA_COPY Device Class Name : LTO2 Estimated Capacity : 381 468 Scaled Capacity Applied : Pct Util : 0,2 Volume Status :Filling Access : Offsite Pct. Reclaimable Space : 100 Scratch Volume? : Yes In Error State? : No Number of Writable Sides : 1 Number of Times Mounted : 4 Write Pass Number : 1 Approx. Date Last Written : 07-06-12 09:48:25 EDT Approx. Date Last Read : 07-06-11 15:53:01 EDT Date Became Pending : Number of Write Errors : 0 Number of Read Errors : 0 Volume Location : vault Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No Last Update by (administrator) : ADMIN Last Update Date/Time : 07-06-12 13:15:32 EDT Begin Reclaim Period : End Reclaim Period : Drive Encryption Key Manager : 2) q content a00043 f=d Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: QUERY CONTENT a00043 f=d (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2034E QUERY CONTENT: No match found using this criteria. (SESSION: 213681) 3) delete volume a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2406E DELETE VOLUME: Volume A00043 still contains data. (SESSION: 213681) 4) move data a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: MOVE DATA a00043 (SESSION: 214470) Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2209W Volume A00043 contains no data. (SESSION: 214470) 5) delete volume a00043 discard=yes Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 discard=yes (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR1423W Scratch volume A00043 is empty but will not be deleted - volume access mode is "offsite". (SESSION: 213681) How can i delete a volume with access mode "offsite"? Thanks, Jacquelin Bouchard, UQTR
Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume
This volume is probably the victim of a TSM database inconsistency, where an AUDit Volume will likely be needed to clear its problem. Richard Sims
Re: Problem is still there with a LTO volume
How can i delete a volume with access mode "offsite"? update vol A00043 access=readw -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jacquelin Bouchard Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:23 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Problem is still there with a LTO volume 1) q vol a00043 f=d Output: Volume Name : A00043 Storage Pool Name : TPCE_BCK_DATA_COPY Device Class Name : LTO2 Estimated Capacity : 381 468 Scaled Capacity Applied : Pct Util : 0,2 Volume Status :Filling Access : Offsite Pct. Reclaimable Space : 100 Scratch Volume? : Yes In Error State? : No Number of Writable Sides : 1 Number of Times Mounted : 4 Write Pass Number : 1 Approx. Date Last Written : 07-06-12 09:48:25 EDT Approx. Date Last Read : 07-06-11 15:53:01 EDT Date Became Pending : Number of Write Errors : 0 Number of Read Errors : 0 Volume Location : vault Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No Last Update by (administrator) : ADMIN Last Update Date/Time : 07-06-12 13:15:32 EDT Begin Reclaim Period : End Reclaim Period : Drive Encryption Key Manager : 2) q content a00043 f=d Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: QUERY CONTENT a00043 f=d (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2034E QUERY CONTENT: No match found using this criteria. (SESSION: 213681) 3) delete volume a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2406E DELETE VOLUME: Volume A00043 still contains data. (SESSION: 213681) 4) move data a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: MOVE DATA a00043 (SESSION: 214470) Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2209W Volume A00043 contains no data. (SESSION: 214470) 5) delete volume a00043 discard=yes Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 discard=yes (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR1423W Scratch volume A00043 is empty but will not be deleted - volume access mode is "offsite". (SESSION: 213681) How can i delete a volume with access mode "offsite"? Thanks, Jacquelin Bouchard, UQTR
Problem is still there with a LTO volume
1) q vol a00043 f=d Output: Volume Name : A00043 Storage Pool Name : TPCE_BCK_DATA_COPY Device Class Name : LTO2 Estimated Capacity : 381 468 Scaled Capacity Applied : Pct Util : 0,2 Volume Status :Filling Access : Offsite Pct. Reclaimable Space : 100 Scratch Volume? : Yes In Error State? : No Number of Writable Sides : 1 Number of Times Mounted : 4 Write Pass Number : 1 Approx. Date Last Written : 07-06-12 09:48:25 EDT Approx. Date Last Read : 07-06-11 15:53:01 EDT Date Became Pending : Number of Write Errors : 0 Number of Read Errors : 0 Volume Location : vault Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No Last Update by (administrator) : ADMIN Last Update Date/Time : 07-06-12 13:15:32 EDT Begin Reclaim Period : End Reclaim Period : Drive Encryption Key Manager : 2) q content a00043 f=d Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: QUERY CONTENT a00043 f=d (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:03:09 EDT Message : ANR2034E QUERY CONTENT: No match found using this criteria. (SESSION: 213681) 3) delete volume a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 13:57:50 EDT Message : ANR2406E DELETE VOLUME: Volume A00043 still contains data. (SESSION: 213681) 4) move data a00043 Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: MOVE DATA a00043 (SESSION: 214470) Date/Time : 08-04-03 15:20:57 EDT Message : ANR2209W Volume A00043 contains no data. (SESSION: 214470) 5) delete volume a00043 discard=yes Output: Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: DELETE VOLUME a00043 discard=yes (SESSION: 213681) Date/Time : 08-04-03 14:00:08 EDT Message : ANR1423W Scratch volume A00043 is empty but will not be deleted - volume access mode is "offsite". (SESSION: 213681) How can i delete a volume with access mode "offsite"? Thanks, Jacquelin Bouchard, UQTR
Re: error while restoring TSM DB at DR
On Apr 3, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Taylor, David wrote: I have an automated process for keeping the TSM servers at our DR site, in synch with production. This is a home grown app (mostly Korn shell) and it has been working well for several years. The problem is that twice in the past week, the restore of the TSM DB at the remote site has failed. Things worked just fine for 5 days between the two incidents. ... David - Your TBUNDO096 might be a recurrence of the historic cause you've probably seen in the IBM database. If you can minimize activity during the db backup, and the problem doesn't recur, then that is likely the cause. Whereas you are beyond support and can't report this, I surely hope this is not a current problem in TSM: all of us do TSM DB backups but few do restorals with any frequency to detect the prevalence of such an ugly problem. Richard Sims
error while restoring TSM DB at DR
I have an automated process for keeping the TSM servers at our DR site, in synch with production. This is a home grown app (mostly Korn shell) and it has been working well for several years. The problem is that twice in the past week, the restore of the TSM DB at the remote site has failed. Things worked just fine for 5 days between the two incidents. Both servers are running the same (old) versions of TSM (5.1.6.3) and AIX (5.1.0.5). The database backup is done to disk, I then tar-up some additional system files, compress everything and FTP it to the remote site. Everything unpacks successfully. Checksums are the same on both sides. I keep a week's worth of databases on both sides - I can reproduce the error, by simply attempting to restore the same database backup - so I know there's something wrong with the backup itself. DBVol, and logvols are identical between the servers, and neither is pressed for space 65 and 40% utilization respectively. The database has actually been much larger - so, I know it's not a physical or logical limit - currently the DBB flat-file is about 10GB. If I can't figure out what's causing the issue - is anyone aware of a utility that I can run against the DBB file that might find the problem before I send it to my DR site? Below is the output from the restore at the point that it fails - as you can see it appears to have completed, but then it blows up. -- ANR4639I Restored 2472384 of 2481795 database pages. ANR4640I Restored 2481795 pages from backup series 4251 operation 0. ANR0306I Recovery log volume mount in progress. ANR4641I Sequential media log redo pass in progress. ANR4643I Processed 4096 log records. ANR4643I Processed 8192 log records. ANR4642I Sequential media log undo pass in progress. ANRD tbundo.c(207): ThreadId<0> Error 2 on delete from table AS.Segments for undo. ANR7838S Server operation terminated. ANR7837S Internal error TBUNDO096 detected. 0x10626F48 TbUndoExternal 0x1009D8BC IcLogUndoRecord 0x10444594 IcEstablishPointInTime 0x10440644 icRestoreOneImageCopy 0x1043C09C AdmRestoreDb 0x10342E50 admRestoreDatabase 0x10003ADC RestoreDb 0x10001BF8 main ANR7833S Server thread 1 terminated in response to program abort. ANR7833S Server thread 2 terminated in response to program abort. TIA David ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. **
Re: Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem
Did a date -u on 3 separate TSM AIX servers. All 3 had the same values and on the AIX 5.3 servers TSM had the correct time. It's just this new AIX 6.1 and TSM 5.5 server where TSM has the wrong date. I didn't want to go with AIX6.1 because only TSM 5.5 is "supported" on that platform. But the p520 was ordered with AIX6.1 and we weren't able to get any AIX5.3 ML7 installation media to do a re-install. And time was short...this box had to get up and running PDQ. I have a PMR open with support and their first recommendation was do run an ACCEPT DATE. I did it anyway with no changes. TSM wasn't complaining about the date being off. He's just going along fat, dumb and happy...just 5 hours from now! :-) Bill Boyer -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Clark Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:36 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem Compare "date -u" output on a few systems to be sure your system clock isn't incorrectly set. Often, wall time looks correct, even when the offset and system clock are wrong. [RC] On Thursday, April 03, 2008, at 08:31AM, "Bill Boyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >AIX 6.1 on a Power6 p520 > >TSM 5.5 server > > > >When I issue the AIX date command: > > > ># date > >Thu Apr 3 11:12:55 EDT 2008 > > > >And the TZ variable: > > > >TZ=America/New_York > > > > > >But then a SHOW TIME command in TSM gives me a 5-hour difference.. > > > >tsm: BETHDTCTSM01>show time > > > >Current Date and Time on the Server > > > >04/03/08 16:12:34 > >UTC (GMT) Date/Time is: 04/03/08 15:12:34 > >Last Noted Date/Time is: 04/03/08 16:12:30 > >Daylight Savings Time is in effect: YES > > > > > >I've verified that the date/time is correct in SMITTY and have the correct >timezone specified. Even rebooted the server. > > > >Why are my times off?? Any ideas/solutions??? Please??? > > > >Biill Boyer > >
Re: Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem
Compare "date -u" output on a few systems to be sure your system clock isn't incorrectly set. Often, wall time looks correct, even when the offset and system clock are wrong. [RC] On Thursday, April 03, 2008, at 08:31AM, "Bill Boyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >AIX 6.1 on a Power6 p520 > >TSM 5.5 server > > > >When I issue the AIX date command: > > > ># date > >Thu Apr 3 11:12:55 EDT 2008 > > > >And the TZ variable: > > > >TZ=America/New_York > > > > > >But then a SHOW TIME command in TSM gives me a 5-hour difference.. > > > >tsm: BETHDTCTSM01>show time > > > >Current Date and Time on the Server > > > >04/03/08 16:12:34 > >UTC (GMT) Date/Time is: 04/03/08 15:12:34 > >Last Noted Date/Time is: 04/03/08 16:12:30 > >Daylight Savings Time is in effect: YES > > > > > >I've verified that the date/time is correct in SMITTY and have the correct >timezone specified. Even rebooted the server. > > > >Why are my times off?? Any ideas/solutions??? Please??? > > > >Biill Boyer > >
backup windows 2008 server?
hello, is there a manual available how to backup windows 2008 server? i tried out tsm client 5.5.0.4 with vss/tsmlvsa, both with no success. with best regards stefan savoric
Re: Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Kinder, Kevin P wrote: Bill, Different platform, but we exhibited the same problem when we moved to 5.5 on z/OS. The time zone setting on the version we are running (we aren't running the base code, having had several different APARs applied [AK59448] is the latest) doesn't work, so on spring forward Sunday our time was an hour off. We had to manually adjust the time zone setting and stop/restart TSM. Kevin - You don't mention that you observed IBM document number 7011066 on this topic, so be sure you reviewed that. Richard Sims
Re: Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem
Bill, Different platform, but we exhibited the same problem when we moved to 5.5 on z/OS. The time zone setting on the version we are running (we aren't running the base code, having had several different APARs applied [AK59448] is the latest) doesn't work, so on spring forward Sunday our time was an hour off. We had to manually adjust the time zone setting and stop/restart TSM. Kevin Kinder State of West Virginia -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Boyer Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:29 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem AIX 6.1 on a Power6 p520 TSM 5.5 server When I issue the AIX date command: # date Thu Apr 3 11:12:55 EDT 2008 And the TZ variable: TZ=America/New_York But then a SHOW TIME command in TSM gives me a 5-hour difference.. tsm: BETHDTCTSM01>show time Current Date and Time on the Server 04/03/08 16:12:34 UTC (GMT) Date/Time is: 04/03/08 15:12:34 Last Noted Date/Time is: 04/03/08 16:12:30 Daylight Savings Time is in effect: YES I've verified that the date/time is correct in SMITTY and have the correct timezone specified. Even rebooted the server. Why are my times off?? Any ideas/solutions??? Please??? Biill Boyer
Date/Time different between AIX and TSM problem
AIX 6.1 on a Power6 p520 TSM 5.5 server When I issue the AIX date command: # date Thu Apr 3 11:12:55 EDT 2008 And the TZ variable: TZ=America/New_York But then a SHOW TIME command in TSM gives me a 5-hour difference.. tsm: BETHDTCTSM01>show time Current Date and Time on the Server 04/03/08 16:12:34 UTC (GMT) Date/Time is: 04/03/08 15:12:34 Last Noted Date/Time is: 04/03/08 16:12:30 Daylight Savings Time is in effect: YES I've verified that the date/time is correct in SMITTY and have the correct timezone specified. Even rebooted the server. Why are my times off?? Any ideas/solutions??? Please??? Biill Boyer
Re: Delete volume problem
On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Thomas Denier wrote: -Wanda Prather wrote: - No good way around it, except to run your DELETE VOLUMES serially and with NOTHING ELSE going on. Or upgrade past the bug. Search www.ibm.com: IC50659 If I understand the problem correctly, even having nothing else going on is insufficient. Some of our tape storage pools have three day reusedelay settings, so a volume deletion can occur when there is no current server activity, as a delayed result of a volume being emptied three days earlier. The automatic removal of volumes that had been in empty-Pending state is not an issue: deleting volumes containing data (DISCARDdate=Yes) is a problem, because of the intensity of the database operation. Richard Sims
Re: Delete volume problem
-Wanda Prather wrote: - >No good way around it, except to run your DELETE VOLUMES serially >and with NOTHING ELSE going on. Or upgrade past the bug. Search >www.ibm.com: IC50659 If I understand the problem correctly, even having nothing else going on is insufficient. Some of our tape storage pools have three day reusedelay settings, so a volume deletion can occur when there is no current server activity, as a delayed result of a volume being emptied three days earlier.
Re: Removing Oracle TDP data from TSM (rebinding data to new MC's?)
As a starting point First check to make sure the TSM node for your Oracle backups have backdel=yes...in the past Oracle/RMAN would remove the backups from the RMAN catalog prior to checking to see if the TSM delete operation was actually successful...I believe Oracle has changed this behavior in later releases. You can use TDPOSYNC to verify what is out of sync. This tool looks to see what TSM backups exist on the TSM Server that Oracle/RMAN is not aware of and allows you to remove these backups from the TSM Server. Be careful when using this utility, especially if you manage more than one Oracle node on the TSM Server, as TDPOSYNC may report many objects out-of-sync when in reality you may not have queried against the correct DB Instance in RMAN. Regards, Neil Rasmussen Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development IBM Corporation Almaden Research Center 650 Harry Road San Jose, CA 95120-6099 Phone: 408.927.2206 (T/L: 457-2206) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefan Folkerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 04/03/2008 07:29 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Removing Oracle TDP data from TSM (rebinding data to new MC's?) Hi guy's, I am running into a strange but pretty serieus problem at one of our customers. Capacity is at the limit and I need to fix this issue fast but am at a los at the moment.. There were some wrong policy domains settings that were used to backup Oracle TDP data. I have fixed this issue and put the deleted versions and day's to 0 in the MC. The Oracle DBA tells me rman is deleting it's old data, but I still see data in the system when I look with 'show versions *', data that should have been removed a long time ago (months ago that is). I suspect this has something to do with bindings to wrong MC's, the question is can this be true? And if so, how can I fix this? Or is the DBA wrong and not deleting the old data correctly? Please advise. Regards, Stefan
Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM
How about this. Being in an organization that brought in another system, netbackup, it has confused things to no end. There are a lot of things I could say but typing on a blackberry prevents that, and keeps my blood pressure down. So my main comment is the grass isn't always greener just because some 'used' it someplace else and doesn't know a lick about TSM. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Sent: Thu Apr 03 05:40:22 2008 Subject: Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM Tim, Another good one is de-duplication. Clients and venders alike believe de-deduplication will yield some high level of size reduction with TSM. TSM by design doesn't de-duplicate with the same results as other backup environments. Kenneth L. Bradberry Chief Technology Officer ACS Healthcare Solutions 5225 Auto Club Drive Dearborn MI 48126 (248) 226-4322 Office (313) 673-1686 Cell (248) 22601402 Fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ACS - People Making Technology Work...In HealthcareTM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Hughes Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:34 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM Yeah, What about the client who thinks TSM backups up the same file every night even though it's not been updated. Or who want's a restore on a (specific) file from 6 months ago on a specific date even though that file has been updated 18 times and doesn't understand the a Retention Policy, Versioning or Expiration even after explantion. (The server keeps the inactive versions of the file until their number grows bigger than those allowed by the server policy.) Clark, Margaret wrote: >My favorite is the customer who believes their every backup is on their own private tape, and will we just send it to them? >- Margaret Clark, San Diego Data Processing > >-Original Message- >From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:49 PM >To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >Subject: [ADSM-L] Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM > >Hey there, folks! I'm working very hard on my next book, which will have some product-specific information in it. I'm covering multiple products, so I won't go TOO deep on individual products, but I'd like to do my best to cover misunderstood or frequently asked topics for each major product. I figured that no one would know better than this list which topics people tend to get confused. > >What topics do you think should go on that list? (I've got my personal preferences, but I don't want to prejudice your thoughts.) What are the top 5/20/30 things about TSM that you think people get wrong? > >TIA > >--- >W. Curtis Preston >Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com >VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies > >
Removing Oracle TDP data from TSM (rebinding data to new MC's?)
Hi guy's, I am running into a strange but pretty serieus problem at one of our customers. Capacity is at the limit and I need to fix this issue fast but am at a los at the moment.. There were some wrong policy domains settings that were used to backup Oracle TDP data. I have fixed this issue and put the deleted versions and day's to 0 in the MC. The Oracle DBA tells me rman is deleting it's old data, but I still see data in the system when I look with 'show versions *', data that should have been removed a long time ago (months ago that is). I suspect this has something to do with bindings to wrong MC's, the question is can this be true? And if so, how can I fix this? Or is the DBA wrong and not deleting the old data correctly? Please advise. Regards, Stefan
Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM
If you or your bosses insist on a Grandfather-father-son backup rotation, buy a product designed for it, not TSM. >From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis >Preston >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:49 PM >To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >Subject: [ADSM-L] Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM > >Hey there, folks! I'm working very hard on my next book, which will have some >product-specific information in it. I'm covering multiple products, so I >won't go TOO deep on individual products, but I'd like to do my best to cover >misunderstood or frequently asked topics for each major product. I figured >that no one would know better than this list which topics people tend to get >confused. > >What topics do you think should go on that list? (I've got my personal >preferences, but I don't want to prejudice your thoughts.) What are the top >5/20/30 things about TSM that you think people get wrong? > >TIA > >--- >W. Curtis Preston >Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com >VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies > >
Re: Delete volume problem
Been there..done thatread the book...saw the movie. I feel your pain. We had the same problem and had to do this - over a long holiday.the non-full audit ran 4-days when the DB was only 80GB. Now up to 160GB. I would not want to perform a full audit at this point. "Mcnutt, Larry E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 04/02/2008 04:21 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Delete volume problem We have a database corruption problem that apparently was a result of a failed "delete volume". We are at version 5.3.3.0. The effects we experience are that expiration logs a few thousand errors daily, and we cannot run "delete file" for some defunct nodes. The solution from TSM support is to upgrade to at least 5.4.1.2 and then run an auditdb. I have verified on a test instance that this solution works, but it takes almost 24 hours to run. The TSM database is 70GB at 90 percent. Looking forward to the outage in June. Larry McNutt -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Denier Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:03 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Delete volume problem We have a 5.3.4.0 TSM server running under mainframe Linux. We are in the process of migrating some of our offsite copies to newer tape technology. Yesterday I finished backing up all the data in one of our primary tape pools to a new copy storage pool. This morning I started deleting the volumes from the old copy storage pool previously used for offsite copies of the same primary pool. The first couple of 'delete volume' commands worked fine. The third one was running when our automation started a snapshot database backup. The snapshot process froze with 0 of 0 pages backed up. The 'delete volume' process froze. A number of migration processes running at the time stopped moving data. Node sessions went into permanent run status and stopped moving data. I executed a 'cancel process' command for the 'delete volume' process. It had no visible effect. A little while later I issued a 'cancel process' command for the snapshot process. It caused the status reported by 'query process' to change to 'Cancel pending' but otherwise had no visible effect. I finally shut down the TSM server. I then had to wait some minutes for a defunct dsmserv process to go away before I could restart the TSM server. Later in the day our automation ran an incremental database backup. Once the backup process was safely under way I tried another 'delete volume' command. The 'delete volume' process deleted a few hundred files and then froze. Migration processes and node sessions stopped moving data. The database backup continued to run until it had written all the necessary database pages and dismounted the output tape. It then froze. I was once again unable to cancel either the database backup or the 'delete volume' process. I had the same problem with a defucnt dsmserv process when I stopped the server for the second time that day. Are there any other TSM functions that cannot co-exist safely with 'delete volume' processes? We are preparing to upgrade our TSM server to 5.4.2.0. Will the de facto rules about when to run 'delete volume' processes be different under this release? - This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company / The Timken Corporation
Re: multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library
Have you tried/SUN to replace the defective drive with one of the drives that are working fine ¿? Regards, Bernaldo - Mensaje original De: John C Dury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: jueves, 3 de abril, 2008 15:03:02 Asunto: Re: [ADSM-L] multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library Thanks for the replies. We currently have encryption turned off and have never turned it on. The errors we are getting appear to always be the same drive. Sun/STK replaced the drive the first time when we were consistently getting MEDIA FAULT errors and now after replacing we are consistently getting errors where the tapes are detected are WRITE PROTECTED even though they are not. My guess is that the drive they replaced the first one with is also defective somehow. The code level on all four of the IBM Ultrium LTO4 drives is 7381. The firmware version of the SL500 library is 1201 (6.23.50) John -We are having a similar problem, with LTO4's in a Scalar500 - scratch tapes -were failing to complete any mounting process then going into a Private status -'to prevent re-access' as per ANR8778W. -The problems started when we had two devclasses for LTO, one with -DRIVEncryption set to ON (LTO_ENCRYPT), and the other NO (LTO). Since changing -the LTO devclass to Allow, checking the tapes out and labelling then in again -with a checkin of 'Scratch' seems to alleviated the ongoing status change. We -are still getting the i/o errors on the volumes reporting KEY=7 (write protect) -but the usual 'i/o error reading label', ' could not be mounted' and -'scratch vol changed to Private to prevent re-access' have gone. -Have you been fiddling with Drive Encrypted device classes? --- -Matthew Large -TSM Consultant -Have you checked that your microcode levels are up-to-date ¿? -Regards, -Bernaldo __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html
Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM
The various cited misunderstandings with end users point out the need for a well written service contract upon entering into a service arrangement with an area of your organization. Such a contract needs to define exactly what will happen, when (backup times, retention policies, offsite schedules); what will not happen (e.g., handing TSM tapes to end users, no data images available between backup times); limitations (constraints on drive usage, overall throughput, media problems, downtime, scheduled maintenance and upgrades); client responsibilities (filespace management, assuring backups running, restorals); periodic reports from the server; fees per usage; etc. End user expectations should not be left to their imaginings. Richard Sims
Re: multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library
Thanks for the replies. We currently have encryption turned off and have never turned it on. The errors we are getting appear to always be the same drive. Sun/STK replaced the drive the first time when we were consistently getting MEDIA FAULT errors and now after replacing we are consistently getting errors where the tapes are detected are WRITE PROTECTED even though they are not. My guess is that the drive they replaced the first one with is also defective somehow. The code level on all four of the IBM Ultrium LTO4 drives is 7381. The firmware version of the SL500 library is 1201 (6.23.50) John -We are having a similar problem, with LTO4's in a Scalar500 - scratch tapes -were failing to complete any mounting process then going into a Private status -'to prevent re-access' as per ANR8778W. -The problems started when we had two devclasses for LTO, one with -DRIVEncryption set to ON (LTO_ENCRYPT), and the other NO (LTO). Since changing -the LTO devclass to Allow, checking the tapes out and labelling then in again -with a checkin of 'Scratch' seems to alleviated the ongoing status change. We -are still getting the i/o errors on the volumes reporting KEY=7 (write protect) -but the usual 'i/o error reading label', ' could not be mounted' and -'scratch vol changed to Private to prevent re-access' have gone. -Have you been fiddling with Drive Encrypted device classes? --- -Matthew Large -TSM Consultant -Have you checked that your microcode levels are up-to-date ¿? -Regards, -Bernaldo
Re: multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library
Hello John, Could you please provide us with more details : TSM server level, OS it's running on. Thanks Norman John C Dury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 03/04/2008 00:00 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject [ADSM-L] multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library We have an SL500 tape library with 50 tapes in it and 4 IBM Ultrium LTO4 drives. One of the drives consistently is detecting tapes that get mounted to it as WRITE PROTECTED. We have replaced the fiber between the drive and the DS-4900 SAN switch and also moved it into a new port in the SAN switch in case the GBIC was causing the problem. This all started with the same drive getting multiple MEDIA FAULT errors on the same LTO4 drive and marking tapes as READ ONLY. Sun/STK has since replaced the same drive and now the drive in the same slot on the SL500 is getting the WRITE PROTECTED errors on the tapes that are mounted in it. Could it be the new drive has a bad sensor in it? I'm just not sure what else we can replace at this point to fix this. And if that is the case, are these drives (IBM Ultrium) really that unreliable and get errors this often? Or could it be something with the SL500? This is a new tape library with new drives that is only a few months old. This is our production system and having it mark 10-12 tapes a night as unavailable is quite a pain when we only have 50 tapes in the whole library. Thanks, John
Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM
Tim, Another good one is de-duplication. Clients and venders alike believe de-deduplication will yield some high level of size reduction with TSM. TSM by design doesn't de-duplicate with the same results as other backup environments. Kenneth L. Bradberry Chief Technology Officer ACS Healthcare Solutions 5225 Auto Club Drive Dearborn MI 48126 (248) 226-4322 Office (313) 673-1686 Cell (248) 22601402 Fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ACS - People Making Technology Work...In HealthcareTM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Hughes Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:34 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM Yeah, What about the client who thinks TSM backups up the same file every night even though it's not been updated. Or who want's a restore on a (specific) file from 6 months ago on a specific date even though that file has been updated 18 times and doesn't understand the a Retention Policy, Versioning or Expiration even after explantion. (The server keeps the inactive versions of the file until their number grows bigger than those allowed by the server policy.) Clark, Margaret wrote: >My favorite is the customer who believes their every backup is on their own private tape, and will we just send it to them? >- Margaret Clark, San Diego Data Processing > >-Original Message- >From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:49 PM >To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >Subject: [ADSM-L] Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM > >Hey there, folks! I'm working very hard on my next book, which will have some product-specific information in it. I'm covering multiple products, so I won't go TOO deep on individual products, but I'd like to do my best to cover misunderstood or frequently asked topics for each major product. I figured that no one would know better than this list which topics people tend to get confused. > >What topics do you think should go on that list? (I've got my personal preferences, but I don't want to prejudice your thoughts.) What are the top 5/20/30 things about TSM that you think people get wrong? > >TIA > >--- >W. Curtis Preston >Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com >VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies > >
TSM Client Support for SOlaris 10 containers
Hi All, Hopefully Andy or someone else from IBM can jump in here and answer if there are any plans in the works to add support for installing and running TSM on a Solaris 10 container. Currently, we are mainly backing up the container's data from the global zone. I think the main issues at this time are with the lookback filesystems. Is anyone else on this list using containers and tsm? Thanks, Steve Roder University at Buffalo ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | (716)645-3564)
Re: Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM
Yeah, What about the client who thinks TSM backups up the same file every night even though it's not been updated. Or who want's a restore on a (specific) file from 6 months ago on a specific date even though that file has been updated 18 times and doesn't understand the a Retention Policy, Versioning or Expiration even after explantion. (The server keeps the inactive versions of the file until their number grows bigger than those allowed by the server policy.) Clark, Margaret wrote: My favorite is the customer who believes their every backup is on their own private tape, and will we just send it to them? - Margaret Clark, San Diego Data Processing -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:49 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Top 20 (or so) misunderstood things about TSM Hey there, folks! I'm working very hard on my next book, which will have some product-specific information in it. I'm covering multiple products, so I won't go TOO deep on individual products, but I'd like to do my best to cover misunderstood or frequently asked topics for each major product. I figured that no one would know better than this list which topics people tend to get confused. What topics do you think should go on that list? (I've got my personal preferences, but I don't want to prejudice your thoughts.) What are the top 5/20/30 things about TSM that you think people get wrong? TIA --- W. Curtis Preston Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
Re: multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library
We are having a similar problem, with LTO4's in a Scalar500 - scratch tapes were failing to complete any mounting process then going into a Private status 'to prevent re-access' as per ANR8778W. The problems started when we had two devclasses for LTO, one with DRIVEncryption set to ON (LTO_ENCRYPT), and the other NO (LTO). Since changing the LTO devclass to Allow, checking the tapes out and labelling then in again with a checkin of 'Scratch' seems to alleviated the ongoing status change. We are still getting the i/o errors on the volumes reporting KEY=7 (write protect) but the usual 'i/o error reading label', ' could not be mounted' and 'scratch vol changed to Private to prevent re-access' have gone. Have you been fiddling with Drive Encrypted device classes? -- Matthew Large TSM Consultant -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Dury Sent: 02 April 2008 22:57 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library We have an SL500 tape library with 50 tapes in it and 4 IBM Ultrium LTO4 drives. One of the drives consistently is detecting tapes that get mounted to it as WRITE PROTECTED. We have replaced the fiber between the drive and the DS-4900 SAN switch and also moved it into a new port in the SAN switch in case the GBIC was causing the problem. This all started with the same drive getting multiple MEDIA FAULT errors on the same LTO4 drive and marking tapes as READ ONLY. Sun/STK has since replaced the same drive and now the drive in the same slot on the SL500 is getting the WRITE PROTECTED errors on the tapes that are mounted in it. Could it be the new drive has a bad sensor in it? I'm just not sure what else we can replace at this point to fix this. And if that is the case, are these drives (IBM Ultrium) really that unreliable and get errors this often? Or could it be something with the SL500? This is a new tape library with new drives that is only a few months old. This is our production system and having it mark 10-12 tapes a night as unavailable is quite a pain when we only have 50 tapes in the whole library. Thanks, John Barclays Wealth is the wealth management division of Barclays Bank PLC. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group. The availability of products and services may be limited by the applicable laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions. The Barclays Group does not normally accept or offer business instructions via internet email. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. The Barclays Group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays Group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays Group. Barclays Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales (registered no. 1026167). Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, United Kingdom. Barclays Bank PLC is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Re: multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library
Have you checked that your microcode levels are up-to-date ¿? Regards, Bernaldo - Mensaje original De: John C Dury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Enviado: miércoles, 2 de abril, 2008 23:56:59 Asunto: [ADSM-L] multiple tapes being detected as WRITE PROTECTED in SL500 library We have an SL500 tape library with 50 tapes in it and 4 IBM Ultrium LTO4 drives. One of the drives consistently is detecting tapes that get mounted to it as WRITE PROTECTED. We have replaced the fiber between the drive and the DS-4900 SAN switch and also moved it into a new port in the SAN switch in case the GBIC was causing the problem. This all started with the same drive getting multiple MEDIA FAULT errors on the same LTO4 drive and marking tapes as READ ONLY. Sun/STK has since replaced the same drive and now the drive in the same slot on the SL500 is getting the WRITE PROTECTED errors on the tapes that are mounted in it. Could it be the new drive has a bad sensor in it? I'm just not sure what else we can replace at this point to fix this. And if that is the case, are these drives (IBM Ultrium) really that unreliable and get errors this often? Or could it be something with the SL500? This is a new tape library with new drives that is only a few months old. This is our production system and having it mark 10-12 tapes a night as unavailable is quite a pain when we only have 50 tapes in the whole library. Thanks, John __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html
