Re: VOLSER question
Thank you, Rick.
Re: V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
Skylar and Zoltan, Thank you both, Keith
Re: V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
Glad you mentioned this since I take issues with this "requirement". Yes, I have seen the docs that say this is how it should/must be. However, my 6.1.x server has been a "library client" to the 5.5.x "library manager" servers since I first installed and configured it. I have never seen an issue with this configuration. To be on the "safe side", I have been migrating the LM functionality to the new 6.2.x servers. Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html From: Skylar Thompson To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 11/29/2010 03:08 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Speaking of that, also note that the library manager must be running the latest TSM version of all the systems talking to a particular library. On 11/29/10 11:50 AM, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > Same here. 4 - 5.5.0, 1 - 6.1.4.3 and 3 - 6.2.2.0 servers all talking to > each other. Currently moving library manager functionality to the 6.2.2.0 > servers. All talk to each other just fine. Just remember that you can > not export/move anything down from a higher (6.x) server to a 5.x server. > So, if you move a node to the 6.x server, you can't move the > data/definitions back to 5.x server. You have to start all over again > with clean backups. > Zoltan Forray > TSM Software& Hardware Administrator > Virginia Commonwealth University > UCC/Office of Technology Services > zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social > security number or confidential personal information. For more details > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html > > > > From: > Skylar Thompson > To: > ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: > 11/29/2010 12:13 PM > Subject: > Re: [ADSM-L] V5.5<--> V6.2 server-to-server communications? > Sent by: > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" > > > > It should. We've got a mix of 5.5, 6.1, and 6.2 servers in our setup and > they all communicate just fine. > > On 11/29/10 08:55 AM, Keith Arbogast wrote: >> We are upgrading two TSM 5.5.4.3 servers on RHEL 5 to TSM 6.2.2.0 soon. > In the event that one of the upgrades has to be backed out, will > server-to-server communications work normally between a V5.5 TSM server > and a V6.2 server? If someone has actually been doing that for a period > of time, I would be especially grateful to hear from you. >> With my thanks and best wishes, >> Keith >> > -- > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 > -- University of Washington School of Medicine -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
Speaking of that, also note that the library manager must be running the latest TSM version of all the systems talking to a particular library. On 11/29/10 11:50 AM, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Same here. 4 - 5.5.0, 1 - 6.1.4.3 and 3 - 6.2.2.0 servers all talking to each other. Currently moving library manager functionality to the 6.2.2.0 servers. All talk to each other just fine. Just remember that you can not export/move anything down from a higher (6.x) server to a 5.x server. So, if you move a node to the 6.x server, you can't move the data/definitions back to 5.x server. You have to start all over again with clean backups. Zoltan Forray TSM Software& Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html From: Skylar Thompson To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 11/29/2010 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] V5.5<--> V6.2 server-to-server communications? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" It should. We've got a mix of 5.5, 6.1, and 6.2 servers in our setup and they all communicate just fine. On 11/29/10 08:55 AM, Keith Arbogast wrote: We are upgrading two TSM 5.5.4.3 servers on RHEL 5 to TSM 6.2.2.0 soon. In the event that one of the upgrades has to be backed out, will server-to-server communications work normally between a V5.5 TSM server and a V6.2 server? If someone has actually been doing that for a period of time, I would be especially grateful to hear from you. With my thanks and best wishes, Keith -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
Same here. 4 - 5.5.0, 1 - 6.1.4.3 and 3 - 6.2.2.0 servers all talking to each other. Currently moving library manager functionality to the 6.2.2.0 servers. All talk to each other just fine. Just remember that you can not export/move anything down from a higher (6.x) server to a 5.x server. So, if you move a node to the 6.x server, you can't move the data/definitions back to 5.x server. You have to start all over again with clean backups. Zoltan Forray TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html From: Skylar Thompson To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 11/29/2010 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" It should. We've got a mix of 5.5, 6.1, and 6.2 servers in our setup and they all communicate just fine. On 11/29/10 08:55 AM, Keith Arbogast wrote: > We are upgrading two TSM 5.5.4.3 servers on RHEL 5 to TSM 6.2.2.0 soon. In the event that one of the upgrades has to be backed out, will server-to-server communications work normally between a V5.5 TSM server and a V6.2 server? If someone has actually been doing that for a period of time, I would be especially grateful to hear from you. > > With my thanks and best wishes, > Keith > -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: TSM for DB
The latest level of Data Protection for Oracle is V5.5.2 http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24023400 Thanks, Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 11/29/2010 01:08:39 PM: >> From: David E Ehresman >> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu >> Date: 11/29/2010 01:18 PM >> Subject: Re: TSM for DB >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" >> >> I'm interested in TSM for DB/Oracle >> >> David >> >> >>> Del Hoobler 11/29/2010 8:05 AM >>> >> Hi David, >> >> I am not sure which one you are asking about in particular, >> but the latest Data Protection for SQL is 5.5.4. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Del >> >> >> >> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 11/22/2010 >> 11:52:13 AM: >> >> >> From: David E Ehresman >> >> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu >> >> Date: 11/22/2010 11:54 AM >> >> Subject: TSM for DB >> >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" >> >> >> >> Is there a TSM for DB v6 client? The latest I can find is TSM for >> DB >> >> v5.5 >> >> >> >> David
Re: TSM for DB
I'm interested in TSM for DB/Oracle David >>> Del Hoobler 11/29/2010 8:05 AM >>> Hi David, I am not sure which one you are asking about in particular, but the latest Data Protection for SQL is 5.5.4. Thanks, Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 11/22/2010 11:52:13 AM: >> From: David E Ehresman >> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu >> Date: 11/22/2010 11:54 AM >> Subject: TSM for DB >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" >> >> Is there a TSM for DB v6 client? The latest I can find is TSM for DB >> v5.5 >> >> David
Re: V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
It should. We've got a mix of 5.5, 6.1, and 6.2 servers in our setup and they all communicate just fine. On 11/29/10 08:55 AM, Keith Arbogast wrote: We are upgrading two TSM 5.5.4.3 servers on RHEL 5 to TSM 6.2.2.0 soon. In the event that one of the upgrades has to be backed out, will server-to-server communications work normally between a V5.5 TSM server and a V6.2 server? If someone has actually been doing that for a period of time, I would be especially grateful to hear from you. With my thanks and best wishes, Keith -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S048, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
V5.5 <--> V6.2 server-to-server communications?
We are upgrading two TSM 5.5.4.3 servers on RHEL 5 to TSM 6.2.2.0 soon. In the event that one of the upgrades has to be backed out, will server-to-server communications work normally between a V5.5 TSM server and a V6.2 server? If someone has actually been doing that for a period of time, I would be especially grateful to hear from you. With my thanks and best wishes, Keith
Re: Database audit performance
Eric, Thank you for sharing your findings. When you say you "turned off LV mirroring", are you referring to something like AIX LVM mirroring? Or perhaps to TSM dbvol mirroring? Not sure if you are using AIX or something else. Thanks. ..Paul At 05:00 AM 11/29/2010, Loon, EJ van - SPLXO wrote: >Hi TSM-ers! >Just to let you all know, I have found several things to speed up the >auditdb. We have turned of logical volume mirroring on the LV containing >the database volumes and I have tried the unload/load before starting >the audit. >Database audit used to take around 17 hours, turning off LV mirroring >saved us another hour and after a unload/load (thank you very much Mark >Haye from Development for the tip) the audit ran for 12 hours! Deleting >all diskpool volumes before the audit saves me another 30 minutes. >I will plan the audit in two separate steps: one downtime for the >unload/load on day one and the auditdb on day two. >Kind regards, >Eric van Loon >KLM Royal Dutch Airlines > > >-Original Message- >From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of >Loon, EJ van - SPLXO >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:44 AM >To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >Subject: [ADSM-L] Database audit performance > >Hi TSM-ers! >We're having orphaned database entries, caused by a very old bug, fixed >some server releases ago, but only recently discovered. I'm currently >trying to find a way to speed-up the auditdb performance. >What I'm planning to do is this: >1) backup the database on our production server >2) stop the production server >3) restore the production database on our test server which already used >new disks, allocated on our new Vmax. >4) perform an audit fix=yes on this database >5) backup the fixed database and restore it on the production server >I already tested the scenario above and it works, but the audit takes >too long to finish (17 hours). Since we're backing up a lot of Oracle >databases, TSM downtime will be too long, the Oracle recovery logs will >fill up and the databases will stop. >We are running an AIX TSM server with plenty of memory and multiple HBA >to the SAN. >Restoring the database runs ok, Topas is showing around 25 Mb/sec disk >write speed. I have seen better performance on Vmax disks, but I can >live with this. >When I start the audit Topas shows a disk read and write speed average >less than 1 Mb./sec. CPU average is around 50% and vmstat shows no page >in and out. >I tried everything: mounting the filespace with cio, dio, using RAW >logical volumes, tuning read ahead through ioo, it doesn't make any >difference or even gets worse (when using RAW for instance). >I'm really out of options here. Something is holding back the audit, but >I can't find what! >Does anybody have some tips for me? >Thank you VERY much in advance! >Kind regards, >Eric van Loon >KLM Royal Dutch Airlines >For >information, services and offers, please visit our web site: >http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain >confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If >you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail >or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any >other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly >prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by >error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete >this message.Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its >subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect >or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor >responsible for any delay in receipt.Koninklijke Luchtvaart >Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered >in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 > > >For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: >http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential >and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the >addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may >be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this >e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have >received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return >e-mail, and delete this message. > >Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its >employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of >this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. >Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch >Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number >33014286 >**
Re: Database audit performance
Eric, This may not apply to your case, but in hopes that it does... We had orphan entries in our database that were confined to storage records. I believe TSM Support was able to discern that from the error messages we were seeing in the Activity Log. That allowed us to do the audit on the storage records only, (auditdb diskstorage fix=yes) and that ran much faster than a full audit. In addition, we cleaned all data from the disk pools before starting the audit, and that accelerated the audit by a factor of 10 to 1. Best wishes, Keith
Re: VOLSER question
Mehdi, Since you say that you are using e-config, I'm assuming that you want to create a config for new tapes with labels that you want to order. If so, e-config wants the last digit of the starting label sequence to be zero for multi-tape packs. So for example, if you wanted to order a 20 tape pack, the labels would be something like 100020 through 100039. If you have a special need to start the sequence with something other zero then you probably need to call your IBM rep or business partner. Thanks, Rick At 05:59 AM 11/28/2010, you wrote: Hi, When I configure LTO4 media by IBM e-config it forces me to use "0" for sixth character. I have LTO4 volumes like 100015 in TSM and you see that the sixth character is not "0". I cannot explain that. Thank you, Mehdi Rick Saylor Austin Community College Voice: (512)223-1182 Director of System Services 9101 Tuscany Way Fax: (512)223-1211 Information Technology Austin, Texas 78754
Warning: TSM 6.2.2 server with 5.5.2 Admin client
Last Tuesday, I upgraded a test AIX TSM server from TSM 6.2.1.0 to TSM 6.2.2.0. After the upgrade ran to completion, I immediately begin receiving "ANS0101E Unable to open English message repository 'dsmclientV3.cat'." from dsmadmc. I recognized this as the missing dsmclientV3.cat problem that has been discussed before on the list so I went looking. On a functioning system, I found it at /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/lang/en_US but on the test system I discovered I no longer had a /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/lang/en_US directory but instead had a /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/lang/EN_US directory that did NOT have dsmclientV3.cat in it. So I created /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/lang/en_US on my test system, copied the contents from my working system, and created the soft link in the /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/ba/bin directory to point to the lang directory, ln -s /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/lang/en_US en_US. At this point, dsmadmc was functional again. So if you're upgrading from TSM v6.2.1 to 6.2.2 on an AIX box with the TSM v5 admin client, be prepared. David
Re: TSM for DB
Hi David, I am not sure which one you are asking about in particular, but the latest Data Protection for SQL is 5.5.4. Thanks, Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 11/22/2010 11:52:13 AM: >> From: David E Ehresman >> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu >> Date: 11/22/2010 11:54 AM >> Subject: TSM for DB >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" >> >> Is there a TSM for DB v6 client? The latest I can find is TSM for DB >> v5.5 >> >> David
TSM Lan-free backup
we are having a san env with a TSm server ( v6.2) , a client , tape library . The tsm server has complete control on the tape library and uses it for its daily operations. In order to configure lan free data transfer, should i modify the san switch zoning so that the tape library& drives are mapped to the client as well ? i have done all the steps on the client side as well as the server side to enable lan free data transfer ,but it does not work . so wondering if zoning is the issue ? +-- |This was sent by gibi...@gmail.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +--
Re: Database audit performance
Hi TSM-ers! Just to let you all know, I have found several things to speed up the auditdb. We have turned of logical volume mirroring on the LV containing the database volumes and I have tried the unload/load before starting the audit. Database audit used to take around 17 hours, turning off LV mirroring saved us another hour and after a unload/load (thank you very much Mark Haye from Development for the tip) the audit ran for 12 hours! Deleting all diskpool volumes before the audit saves me another 30 minutes. I will plan the audit in two separate steps: one downtime for the unload/load on day one and the auditdb on day two. Kind regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Loon, EJ van - SPLXO Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:44 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Database audit performance Hi TSM-ers! We're having orphaned database entries, caused by a very old bug, fixed some server releases ago, but only recently discovered. I'm currently trying to find a way to speed-up the auditdb performance. What I'm planning to do is this: 1) backup the database on our production server 2) stop the production server 3) restore the production database on our test server which already used new disks, allocated on our new Vmax. 4) perform an audit fix=yes on this database 5) backup the fixed database and restore it on the production server I already tested the scenario above and it works, but the audit takes too long to finish (17 hours). Since we're backing up a lot of Oracle databases, TSM downtime will be too long, the Oracle recovery logs will fill up and the databases will stop. We are running an AIX TSM server with plenty of memory and multiple HBA to the SAN. Restoring the database runs ok, Topas is showing around 25 Mb/sec disk write speed. I have seen better performance on Vmax disks, but I can live with this. When I start the audit Topas shows a disk read and write speed average less than 1 Mb./sec. CPU average is around 50% and vmstat shows no page in and out. I tried everything: mounting the filespace with cio, dio, using RAW logical volumes, tuning read ahead through ioo, it doesn't make any difference or even gets worse (when using RAW for instance). I'm really out of options here. Something is holding back the audit, but I can't find what! Does anybody have some tips for me? Thank you VERY much in advance! Kind regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message.Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286
