Re: Virtual TSM
Remember, TSM (a.k.a. WDSF, ADSM) was originally _invented_ as a virtualized application, under the system now known as z/VM, and was supporetd there until V3.7. It should still have the fundamental design to deal with running in a virtual machine. It does need resources such as tapes to be dedicated to it, and it may take some work to get those resources connected right. But a virtual machine should actually be considered TSM's historic native environment. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu "We all live in a virtual machine, a virtual machine, a virtual machine" --from the SHARE songbook, sung to the tune of the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine" On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Xav Paice wrote: >Quoted from the IBM link, the table refers to virtualisation where "the >resources are then purely virtual (not dedicated) and/or are not discrete". >My confusion, and I'd love someone to clear this up, is where we have RHEL >running KVM. Red Hat clearly stated in their customer seminar on RHEV-M that >if an app is supported on RHEL 5.4, it's supported under KVM on RHEL 5.4. If >I add a PCI card (e.g. multi port HBA with tape attached) to a virtual >machine, that is discrete and dedicated, that could be supported but it's a >pretty grey area. Anyone care to confirm or deny? > >As Wanda put very accurately (off list), "when they say something is >supported, it means if you call and report a problem, they will work on the >problem" - that's the application vendor's support rather than the OS vendor's >view of what's certified. Any software vendor is going to want to limit the >support to things they can test in the lab - Tivoli might test TSM on RHEL, >but maybe not RHEL under RHEV/KVM. > >That link also mentions non i386 virtualisation - such as LPARs and DSD. > >My apologies to the OP if this hijacks the conversation - I think it's on >topic as you didn't mention which hypervisor you will select. > > >- "Wanda Prather" wrote: > >> From: "Wanda Prather" >> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >> Sent: Wednesday, 3 February, 2010 6:13:05 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected >> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Virtual TSM >> >> Yes, you can restore a TSM data base to a new TSM server. >> >> However, think twice before virtualizing - Tivoli doesn't support the >> TSM >> server on a VM if you have tape drivers (i.e., physical tape or VTL). >> See >> below. >> >> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=663&context=SSGSG7&q1=server+support+vmware&uid=swg21239546&loc=en_US&cs=utf-8&lang=en >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Micka >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm looking at virtualising our TSM server. >
Re: BMR for Exchange server - Fastback
IBM responded to me with some good info after reading my post. Here is their suggestion... Johnny, In general, when planning for Bare Machine Recovery for any server, there are 3 data types must be considered: The operating system, the application and the data repositories. For Windows hosts, the first 2 data types are usually recovered as part of the BMR while the data repositories are recovered as a post-BMR process once the operating system has booted and the application is up. In most cases, the same is true of the backups. For example, in a TBMR environment, you will probably have a TSM file-level backup running that excludes the content of the Storage Group (EDBs, log and system directories). Then you will use TSM for Mail - MS Exchange to protect the storage groups themselves. A BMR process in that scenario will be to recreate the OS (and possibly application drives, if they are separate) from TBMR; boot the OS; resolve any post-BMR issues like display or sound drivers; restore any additional application files from TSM; Start Exchange; and then Restore the MSEX Storage Groups. Since you have TSM, I would first look at TBMR or CBMR. FastBack BMR is usually only recommended if you are already running FastBack. While there are some benefits outside of BMR to FastBack that may make one consider adding it to their environment, usually there is not a lot of reason to deploy it just to get BMR, since there are products that do BMR that work with TSM directly. BTW, FastBack BMR and TBMR are definitely not the same product, even under the covers. They are very similar in many ways, but are definitely separate products >>> Josh Davis 2/1/2010 2:12 PM >>> If TBMR is actually Fastback, that's interesting. Fastback is FilesX, a product and company that IBM purchased April 21, 2008. FilesX is a block level filesystem incremental backup product for MS Windows. They can use VSS for 2003 OS and 2005 Exchange/SQL. For older Exchange/SQL it will initiate a quiesce and will be filesystem aware and will manage the backups properly. Exchange individual mailbox restore is to mount up the backup over the network as a drive. The Exchange agent can access the exchange DB on disk and can pull out individual messages and save them to the running exchange server. For normal files, you can just copy them out of the mounted drive (looks like local, RW, NTFS but changes are lost on unmount). Full restore is to overmount the filesystem with the fastback server copy. At that point, it's similar to a mirror with one copy being the FB server and one copy being the local disk. You can mount/start your apps as soon as you initiate the restore. Any data overwritten will not be restored, and any data requested will be restored first in queue. No dismount is requred at the end of the restore. Bare Metal Recovery uses a PEmode CD to boot and initiate the beginning recovery. Fastback DR is formally through replication to a DR hub via FTP. Repository files are sequential access on disk. To integrate this with TSM, you use TSM to back up the Fastback repository, whether it's a local repository, or the repository of a DR hub. Fastback comes with scripts to integrate with TSM and a couple of other vendors' enterprise products. With friendly regards, Josh-Daniel S. Davis From: Johnny Lea To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:20:50 PM Subject: [ADSM-L] BMR for Exchange server I'm lost trying to come up with a bare metal restore product for our Exchange servers. Cristie's CBMR says it treats Exchange data as plain files with nothing to handle the internal structure of Exchange. Not sure about Cristie's TBMR. (my IBM re-seller tells me he talked to Cristie and they told him that their TBMR is IBM Fastback BMR. That sounds strange. Did IBM buy them?) I haven't found anyone yet at IBM who can tell me how Fastback for Bare Metal Restore works with Exchange. Acronis...I know nothing about. I'd love something that would work with my TSM environment. Can anyone suggest anything? Thanks. Johnny Individuals who have received this information in error or are not authorized to receive it must promptly return or dispose of the information and notify the sender. Those individuals are hereby notified that they are strictly prohibited from reviewing, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing or using this information in any way. Individuals who have received this information in error or are not authorized to receive it must promptly return or dispose of the information and notify the sender. Those individuals are hereby notified that they are strictly prohibited from reviewing, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing or using this information in any way.
Re: Virtual TSM
Quoted from the IBM link, the table refers to virtualisation where "the resources are then purely virtual (not dedicated) and/or are not discrete". My confusion, and I'd love someone to clear this up, is where we have RHEL running KVM. Red Hat clearly stated in their customer seminar on RHEV-M that if an app is supported on RHEL 5.4, it's supported under KVM on RHEL 5.4. If I add a PCI card (e.g. multi port HBA with tape attached) to a virtual machine, that is discrete and dedicated, that could be supported but it's a pretty grey area. Anyone care to confirm or deny? As Wanda put very accurately (off list), "when they say something is supported, it means if you call and report a problem, they will work on the problem" - that's the application vendor's support rather than the OS vendor's view of what's certified. Any software vendor is going to want to limit the support to things they can test in the lab - Tivoli might test TSM on RHEL, but maybe not RHEL under RHEV/KVM. That link also mentions non i386 virtualisation - such as LPARs and DSD. My apologies to the OP if this hijacks the conversation - I think it's on topic as you didn't mention which hypervisor you will select. - "Wanda Prather" wrote: > From: "Wanda Prather" > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Sent: Wednesday, 3 February, 2010 6:13:05 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Virtual TSM > > Yes, you can restore a TSM data base to a new TSM server. > > However, think twice before virtualizing - Tivoli doesn't support the > TSM > server on a VM if you have tape drivers (i.e., physical tape or VTL). > See > below. > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=663&context=SSGSG7&q1=server+support+vmware&uid=swg21239546&loc=en_US&cs=utf-8&lang=en > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Micka > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking at virtualising our TSM server.
Upcoming FlashCopy Manager Beta Program - Looking for Participants
If you are interested in an upcoming release of the IBM Tivoli Storage FlashCopy Manager, sign up to join the beta program! If interested, please contact your IBM account representative to be nominated for this beta program.
Re: Virtual TSM
Yes, you can restore a TSM data base to a new TSM server. However, think twice before virtualizing - Tivoli doesn't support the TSM server on a VM if you have tape drivers (i.e., physical tape or VTL). See below. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=663&context=SSGSG7&q1=server+support+vmware&uid=swg21239546&loc=en_US&cs=utf-8&lang=en On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Micka wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at virtualising our TSM server. The OS on the current server is > pretty messed up so I would prefer to start from scratch. > > Can I install/configure a new server then transfer the database? > > Version 5, Release 4, Level 4.0 > > Thanks, > > Michael > > +-- > |This was sent by micka...@hotmail.com via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. > +-- >
Virtual TSM
Hi, I'm looking at virtualising our TSM server. The OS on the current server is pretty messed up so I would prefer to start from scratch. Can I install/configure a new server then transfer the database? Version 5, Release 4, Level 4.0 Thanks, Michael +-- |This was sent by micka...@hotmail.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +--
Client Severed problem with Windows client
This is mostly directed at Andy Raibeck Just wondering when IBM is going to fix the problem with the Windows GUI and connections being severed/ripped (vs properly closed) just for closing the GUI session? We discussed this many months ago. It started happening around the time IBM converted the GUI to Java. IIRC, you said you had seen it, as well. I just pulled down 6.1.3.1 and the problem is still there and has not been addressed in any of the 6.x releases/patches. 2/2/2010 11:20:35 AM ANR0480W Session 7854 for node UCC-PC87 (WinNT) terminated - connection with client severed. Just bring up the Windows GUI and close it via the "X". Get this every time. No, I can not ignore the "client severed" error message since I have long-standing issues with our Networking folks about valid backup connections being "severed" for lots of clients (including non-Windows) due to network throttling/packet/traffic shaping, so these may be valid errors I need to track. Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
Re: SV: [ADSM-L] define drive without defining a library
DEFINE LIBRARY LIBNANE LIBTYPE=MANUAL DEFINE DRIVE LIBNAME DRIVENAME DEFINE PATH SERVERNAME DRIVENAME srctype=server desttype=drive library=LIBENAME DEVICE=MT#.#.#.# -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Mehdi Salehi Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:44 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: SV: [ADSM-L] define drive without defining a library the problem of a manual library is that there is no medium changer and so you cannot define a path to the library. correct me if I am mistaken: 1- define library 2- define path for library 3- define drive 4- define path for drive
System State Backup Performance
IC63094: SYSTEM STATE BACKUP OPTIMIZATION ENHANCEMENT This is a development APAR to improve the efficiency of the method the TSM client uses to query the TSM server database for information about system state files. Additional Keywords: systemstate Local fix Problem summary * USERS AFFECTED: All version 5.5 and 6.1 backup-archive * * clients running on all Windows operating * * systems except Windows XP. * * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: See ERROR DESCRIPTION * * RECOMMENDATION: Apply fixing level when available. This * * problem is currently projected to be fixed * * in levels 5.5.3 and 6.1.4. Note that this* * is subject to change at the discretion of* * IBM. * * Problem conclusionThe client has been changed so that during system state backup, instead of querying the TSM server for each of the system files one file per transaction, it will now query all of the system files in a single transaction. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC63094
