select question on backups table
Tsm server 5.5.4. Windows client 6.3.0 Will the following select show me all backups at and below the designated subdirectory? select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' AND - upper(hl_NAME) like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY' If not, where have I gone wrong?
Re: Exchange 2010 Backup issue
Hi Del, The Backups are working fine but the Exchange guys have come back and said the service account I use has too much authority within Exchange. How do i define what the minimum level of access I require within Exchange? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del Hoobler Sent: 29 April 2013 05:31 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Exchange 2010 Backup issue Hi Jerome, Make sure the TSM Scheduler Service is running under an ID that has proper authority. i.e. change the Log in as value to the same ID as you have success when running it manually. Thanks, Del ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 04/29/2013 11:17:11 AM: From: Swartz, Jerome jerome.swa...@computacenter.com To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 04/29/2013 11:26 AM Subject: Exchange 2010 Backup issue Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu Hi All, Having some issue with my Exchange 2010 backups. I am able to run it manually, both full and incremental but via the TSM schedule it fails. TSM schedule failure: RC1819 EXCSCH log: ACN5350E An unknown Exchange API error has occurred. Please see output below for: tdpexcc q tsm tdpexcc q tdp tpdexcc q exchange IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Mail: Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange Server Version 6, Release 1, Level 2.01 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1998, 2010. All rights reserved. Data Protection for Exchange Preferences BACKUPDESTination... TSM BACKUPMETHod VSS DATEformat . 1 LANGuage ... ENU LOCALDSMAgentnode... EARTH LOGFile tdpexc.log LOGPrune ... 14 MOUNTWait .. Yes NUMberformat ... 1 REMOTEDSMAgentnode.. TEMPDBRestorepath... TEMPLOGRestorepath.. TIMEformat . 1 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Mail: Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange Server Version 6, Release 1, Level 2.01 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1998, 2010. All rights reserved. Querying Exchange Server to gather component information, please wait... Microsoft Exchange Server Information - Server Name: EARTH Domain Name: capespan.com Exchange Server Version: 14.2.318.4 (Exchange Server 2010) Databases and Status MailboxDB01 Circular Logging - Disabled DAG Status - None Recovery - False MailboxDB01 Online MailboxDB02 Circular Logging - Disabled DAG Status - None Recovery - False MailboxDB02 Online MailboxDB03 Circular Logging - Disabled DAG Status - None Recovery - False MailboxDB03 Online MailboxDB04 Circular Logging - Disabled DAG Status - None Recovery - False MailboxDB04 Online Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) Information Writer Name : Microsoft Exchange Writer Local DSMAgent Node : EARTH Remote DSMAgent Node : Writer Status : Online Selectable Components : 4 IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Mail: Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange Server Version 6, Release 1, Level 2.01 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1998, 2010. All rights reserved. Tivoli Storage Manager Server Connection Information Nodename .. EARTH_EXC NetWork Host Name of Server . ATHENA.CAPESPAN.COM TSM API Version .. Version 6, Release 2, Level 4.0 Server Name CAPESPAN-TSM Server Type .. Windows Server Version .. Version 5, Release 5, Level 4.2 Compression Mode ... Client Determined Domain Name ... EXCHANGE_DOMAIN Active Policy Set EXCAHNGE_POLICY Default Management Class EXCHANGE_DAILY If there is anything else I can produce please do advise. Regards, Jerome Swartz ** COMPUTACENTER PLC is registered in England and Wales with the registered number 03110569. Its registered office is at Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9TW COMPUTACENTER (UK) Limited is registered in England and Wales
Re: Exchange 2010 Backup issue
Jerome, As documented in the Data Protection for Exchange User's Guide: Security requirements for Data Protection for Exchange backup and restore tasks on Exchange Server 2010 To perform backup and restore tasks on Exchange Server 2010, Data Protection for Exchange must be operating in an account with membership in the Organization Management group. Thanks, Del ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 05/07/2013 09:05:49 AM: From: Swartz, Jerome jerome.swa...@computacenter.com To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 05/07/2013 09:08 AM Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Backup issue Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu Hi Del, The Backups are working fine but the Exchange guys have come back and said the service account I use has too much authority within Exchange. How do i define what the minimum level of access I require within Exchange? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del Hoobler Sent: 29 April 2013 05:31 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Exchange 2010 Backup issue Hi Jerome, Make sure the TSM Scheduler Service is running under an ID that has proper authority. i.e. change the Log in as value to the same ID as you have success when running it manually. Thanks, Del
Re: Exchange 2010 Backup issue
We gave our TSM Exchange Service 'domain administrator' rights. And it works with the TSM schedules. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del Hoobler Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:29 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Exchange 2010 Backup issue Jerome, As documented in the Data Protection for Exchange User's Guide: Security requirements for Data Protection for Exchange backup and restore tasks on Exchange Server 2010 To perform backup and restore tasks on Exchange Server 2010, Data Protection for Exchange must be operating in an account with membership in the Organization Management group. Thanks, Del ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 05/07/2013 09:05:49 AM: From: Swartz, Jerome jerome.swa...@computacenter.com To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 05/07/2013 09:08 AM Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Backup issue Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu Hi Del, The Backups are working fine but the Exchange guys have come back and said the service account I use has too much authority within Exchange. How do i define what the minimum level of access I require within Exchange? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del Hoobler Sent: 29 April 2013 05:31 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Exchange 2010 Backup issue Hi Jerome, Make sure the TSM Scheduler Service is running under an ID that has proper authority. i.e. change the Log in as value to the same ID as you have success when running it manually. Thanks, Del
Re: select question on backups table
To get other subdirectories, you'll need to add the wildcard designator % (without a wildcard, like is the same as =) upper(hl_NAME) like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY%' -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee, Gary Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:03 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] select question on backups table Tsm server 5.5.4. Windows client 6.3.0 Will the following select show me all backups at and below the designated subdirectory? select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' AND - upper(hl_NAME) like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY' If not, where have I gone wrong?
Re: select question on backups table
-Gary Lee wrote: - Tsm server 5.5.4. Windows client 6.3.0 Will the following select show me all backups at and below the designated subdirectory? select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' AND - upper(hl_NAME) like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY' If not, where have I gone wrong? Selects against the Version 5 'backups' table tend to be very time consuming. It would almost certainly be faster to use client facilities to find the backup files. Note that a TSM administer with system privilege can do this from a Windows system other than the one the files came from. Thomas Denier Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
Fw: select question on backups table
One more thing... My examples assume that the HL_NAME is complete, i.e., it is in the root of the file system. If \BIOMECHANICS is NOT in the root of the file system, then you will need to use 'like' in both cases I described earlier, and prefix the HL_NAME with a '%', like this: To see all objects in ..\FATIGUE STUDY but not in subdirectories: select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' and hl_name like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY\' To see all objects in ..\FATIGUE STUDY and its subdirectories: select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' and hl_name like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY\%' - Andy Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead | stor...@us.ibm.com IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links: Product support: http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager Online documentation: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli Documentation Central/page/Tivoli Storage Manager Product Wiki: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli +Storage+Manager/page/Home - Forwarded by Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM on 2013-05-07 10:30 - Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM wrote on 2013-05-07 10:28:53: From: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 2013-05-07 10:28 Subject: Re: select question on backups table Hi Gary, If this is a Windows client, you do not need to upper-case the HL_NAME as long as the actual pattern you specify is in upper case. This is because file system backups on Windows are always stored in upper case. The HL_NAME specification should have a terminating backslash. If you want to see backups in subdirectories of ..\FATIGUE STUDY, then append a percent sign to the end of the HL_NAME specification. If you do not want to see the backups in subdirectories, then you can use '=' instead of 'like'. In sum: To see all objects in ..\FATIGUE STUDY but not in subdirectories: select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' and hl_name = '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY\' To see all objects in ..\FATIGUE STUDY and its subdirectories: select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' and hl_name like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY\%' - Andy Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead | stor...@us.ibm.com IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links: Product support: http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/ Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager Online documentation: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/ mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli Documentation Central/page/ Tivoli Storage Manager Product Wiki: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/ wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli+Storage+Manager/page/Home ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 2013-05-0709:03:11: From: Lee, Gary g...@bsu.edu To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 2013-05-07 09:10 Subject: select question on backups table Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu Tsm server 5.5.4. Windows client 6.3.0 Will the following select show me all backups at and below the designated subdirectory? select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' AND - upper(hl_NAME) like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY' If not, where have I gone wrong?
Re: select question on backups table
upper(hl_NAME) like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY%' This is pretty close to what I also responded with. However, it will pick up entries not only in '..\FATIGUE STUDY', but also in '..\FATIGUE STUDY - PRELIMINARY' or '..\FATIGUE STUDY2', which might not be desirable. This is probably closer to what Gary is looking for: upper(hl_NAME) like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY\%' - Andy Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead | stor...@us.ibm.com IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links: Product support: http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager Online documentation: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli Documentation Central/page/Tivoli Storage Manager Product Wiki: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli +Storage+Manager/page/Home ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 2013-05-07 10:13:44: From: Prather, Wanda wanda.prat...@icfi.com To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, Date: 2013-05-07 10:20 Subject: Re: select question on backups table Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu To get other subdirectories, you'll need to add the wildcard designator % (without a wildcard, like is the same as =) upper(hl_NAME) like '%\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY%' -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee, Gary Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:03 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] select question on backups table Tsm server 5.5.4. Windows client 6.3.0 Will the following select show me all backups at and below the designated subdirectory? select * from backups where node_name='CASTSTORAGE' AND - upper(hl_NAME) like '\BIOMECHANICS\DICKIN\FATIGUE STUDY\FATIGUE STUDY' If not, where have I gone wrong?
ANR0429W message
Hi to all I notice for this warning on the actlog about a node EXCHSRVA 05/07/2013 17:26:29 ANR0429W (Session: 54758, Origin: EXCHSRVAN_SA) Session 9887 for node EXCHSRVA (WinNT) refused - maximum server sessions (4) exceeded. (SESSION: 54758) I check the opt server tsm: ADSM2q opt maxsessions Server Option Option Setting - --- MaxSessions 200 I check the mountpoint for this node The Maximum Mount Points Allowed for node Exchsrva is: 20 In the dsm.opt of this node I have a resourceutilization of 10 So from where this warning got the value of 4 sessions ? Any ideas … Best Regards Robert Ouzen
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
I'd also like to vote this up. We're a research organization so we don't have litigation per se, but there are times when we need to freeze expiration for other reasons. -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine On 05/07/13 07:59, Ben Bullock wrote: That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642
select question in backups table
Thanks all. Got it working now. Forgot the % as all found.
Re: ANR0429W message
Is this a scheduled session? There is another setting, maxschedsessions, that controls the percentage of the total sessions that can be scheduled sessions. If that is set really low (like 2%, seems unlikely now that I think about it), then that would be the 4 sessions. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Robert Ouzen rou...@univ.haifa.ac.ilwrote: Hi to all I notice for this warning on the actlog about a node EXCHSRVA 05/07/2013 17:26:29 ANR0429W (Session: 54758, Origin: EXCHSRVAN_SA) Session 9887 for node EXCHSRVA (WinNT) refused - maximum server sessions (4) exceeded. (SESSION: 54758) I check the opt server tsm: ADSM2q opt maxsessions Server Option Option Setting - --- MaxSessions 200 I check the mountpoint for this node The Maximum Mount Points Allowed for node Exchsrva is: 20 In the dsm.opt of this node I have a resourceutilization of 10 So from where this warning got the value of 4 sessions ? Any ideas … Best Regards Robert Ouzen -- Andy Carlson --- Gamecube:$150,PSO:$50,Broadband Adapter: $35, Hunters License: $8.95/month, The feeling of seeing the red box with the item you want in it:Priceless.
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
I agree this is a great RFE, and I have added my vote to it. Go to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/?BRAND_ID=90. You will need to sign in with your IBM ID to vote. Search by RFE ID to go to the desired RFE. Open the RFE and then click Add vote under RFE actions. From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] on behalf of Ben Bullock [bbull...@bcidaho.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:59 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Got it. Voted. Thanks -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, Michael A (Mike) CIV USARMY 93 SIG BDE (US) Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:01 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold I agree this is a great RFE, and I have added my vote to it. Go to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/?BRAND_ID%3D90k=Kv4nkNfjdxVgeJz6Pg57qw%3D%3D%0Ar=I1HLMFJ6m%2BiVcavWgCBtVd78uShy4GoDLiStkJAJ6wk%3D%0Am=x%2B6alTX5na7BL9zpHHo5bVZ89hIdgEmEAeC8GEPEa%2Bg%3D%0As=ae4c9e66642e3d122c6b1cff72603aa38cde0082ba1db6bf819f1f4a2336a5d2. You will need to sign in with your IBM ID to vote. Search by RFE ID to go to the desired RFE. Open the RFE and then click Add vote under RFE actions. From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] on behalf of Ben Bullock [bbull...@bcidaho.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:59 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Sure could have used this in the past! Got my vote! -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Ben Bullock Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold Got it. Voted. Thanks -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, Michael A (Mike) CIV USARMY 93 SIG BDE (US) Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:01 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold I agree this is a great RFE, and I have added my vote to it. Go to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/?BRAND_ID%3D90k=Kv4nkNfjdxVgeJz6Pg57qw%3D%3D%0Ar=I1HLMFJ6m%2BiVcavWgCBtVd78uShy4GoDLiStkJAJ6wk%3D%0Am=x%2B6alTX5na7BL9zpHHo5bVZ89hIdgEmEAeC8GEPEa%2Bg%3D%0As=ae4c9e66642e3d122c6b1cff72603aa38cde0082ba1db6bf819f1f4a2336a5d2. You will need to sign in with your IBM ID to vote. Search by RFE ID to go to the desired RFE. Open the RFE and then click Add vote under RFE actions. From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] on behalf of Ben Bullock [bbull...@bcidaho.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:59 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown.This email transmission may contain confidential information.This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Ditto -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Plair, Ricky Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:52 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold Sure could have used this in the past! Got my vote! -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Ben Bullock Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold Got it. Voted. Thanks -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Reese, Michael A (Mike) CIV USARMY 93 SIG BDE (US) Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:01 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold I agree this is a great RFE, and I have added my vote to it. Go to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/?BRAND_ID%3D90k=Kv4nkNfjdxVgeJz6Pg57qw%3D%3D%0Ar=I1HLMFJ6m%2BiVcavWgCBtVd78uShy4GoDLiStkJAJ6wk%3D%0Am=x%2B6alTX5na7BL9zpHHo5bVZ89hIdgEmEAeC8GEPEa%2Bg%3D%0As=ae4c9e66642e3d122c6b1cff72603aa38cde0082ba1db6bf819f1f4a2336a5d2. You will need to sign in with your IBM ID to vote. Search by RFE ID to go to the desired RFE. Open the RFE and then click Add vote under RFE actions. From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] on behalf of Ben Bullock [bbull...@bcidaho.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:59 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold That sounds like a great RFE, one I could have used a couple times in the past. How can we vote on this? I'm not familiar with how to do that with IBM RFEs. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Vandeventer, Harold [BS] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:06 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 -- NOTICE: This email message 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 email and destroy all copies of the original message. Blue Cross of Idaho, 3000 E. Pine Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown.This email transmission may
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well. What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain (i.e., LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration you just have to do this: UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD This works if you have all the same management classes defined in LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing a management class, then retention would be controlled by the grace period definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid. No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing management class names, just their attributes. If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same). We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of) the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run or has no effect. ..Paul At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote: To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / InfrastructureEm: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
Re: Back side of a standard TS3500 D23 frame
Can someone who has a TS300 Service Console (TSSC) please send me the physical dimensions - e.g. the depth is what we are looking for. All documentation I find simply says 1U. We are trying to see how shallow of a rack we can get away with. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Richard Rhodes rrho...@firstenergycorp.comwrote: agreed . . . there's no place to put a switch inside. Rick From: Remco Post r.p...@plcs.nl To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 05/06/2013 02:50 PM Subject:Re: Back side of a standard TS3500 D23 frame Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU no picture... there is no room for san-switches in a ts3500, you'll need to mount them in an appropriate 19 rack elsewhere. On 6 mei 2013, at 20:40, Zoltan Forray zfor...@vcu.edu wrote: This is an odd request but does anyone have a picture of (or can take a picture of) the open back side of a standard TS3500 D23 frame (not the HD type)? We are trying to figure where to move the tape drive SAN switch when we get the TS3500. Currently, we have mounted inside of an empty 3494 D-frame. None of the pictures we have found so far show this perspective or always have the HD style with 4-tiers. -- *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 -- Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards, Remco Post r.p...@plcs.nl +31 6 248 21 622 - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. -- *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: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Great ideas Paul I'm preparing to build the alternate server without expiration approach as soon as I can scare up some resources. I'll look at the alternate Domain approach also. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Zarnowski Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:54 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well. What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain (i.e., LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration you just have to do this: UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD This works if you have all the same management classes defined in LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing a management class, then retention would be controlled by the grace period definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid. No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing management class names, just their attributes. If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same). We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of) the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run or has no effect. ..Paul At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote: To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / InfrastructureEm: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
Domain, Management Class and Copy Group Best Practices
Hello all, Back in the early TSM 5 days, or at least once when I went to training, it was advised that each individual platform had its own DOMAIN for retention and destination control. Now, since I'm evaluating a TSM v6 environment, I'm rethinking whether that is necessary across the board. Sure, it's advisable to have platform domains for TDP or NDMP type nodes, because of the way those platforms handle retention settings for backups. However, have any of you decided to 'squish' each of the standard OS B/A client domains into one singular domain? I'm imagining having just one domain for standard B/A client nodes.(In reality, I'll have many domains for standard B/A client nodes, but that's for other reasons, i.e. different stgpool hierarchy). Is there any reason not to do this? Domain definitions have a default management class that defines a copy group with retention, destination and serialization parameters. I can see serialization getting in the way, but that has only happened ONCE in 8 years of TSM 5. Other domain specific options like frequency, and mode don't really impact us much. For Windows, the system state mgmt class is non standard, but since it's not the default, I don't see why I can't just add it as a non-default Management Class. I'm already moving away from a directory management class, how about moving away from the platform-specific domain? Thoughts, ideas? Gotchas, that I might be missing? As always, thanks, Sergio
Re: Domain, Management Class and Copy Group Best Practices
I work in a large research department, with 31 labs that basically function as autonomous businesses, along with a few institutes and centers with their own funding. Of those 31 labs, 13 of them have some form of dedicated computational resources. We used to have one big policy domain, with one or more management classes defined for each of the labs. This would allow each lab to define (more specifically, tell us to define) its own retention and data placement policies. In the old days, this worked because the department funded all backups and archives centrally. We now have moved to a model where the unit generating the backup/archive usage is charged per byte per year via a cost center. It became difficult for us to track which lab a particular node is associated with. We've since split each unit (lab, center, institute, central department) into a separate policy domain. We then have reports that create aggregate data on the policy domain level we use for billing from the cost center. Whether the node is UNIX, Windows, or something else has no bearing on the policy domain; the usage from the cost center perspective is all that matters. The retention and placement policies from the old days is carried over too. This got a little tricky for systems that are jointly owned by multiple units. In these cases, there are specific data volumes that we can assign to a specific unit. We then create a node in that policy domain for that volume with its own backup schedule and restricted backup domain so that we can account for this split in the cost center. -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine On 05/07/13 12:58, Sergio O. Fuentes wrote: Hello all, Back in the early TSM 5 days, or at least once when I went to training, it was advised that each individual platform had its own DOMAIN for retention and destination control. Now, since I'm evaluating a TSM v6 environment, I'm rethinking whether that is necessary across the board. Sure, it's advisable to have platform domains for TDP or NDMP type nodes, because of the way those platforms handle retention settings for backups. However, have any of you decided to 'squish' each of the standard OS B/A client domains into one singular domain? I'm imagining having just one domain for standard B/A client nodes.(In reality, I'll have many domains for standard B/A client nodes, but that's for other reasons, i.e. different stgpool hierarchy). Is there any reason not to do this? Domain definitions have a default management class that defines a copy group with retention, destination and serialization parameters. I can see serialization getting in the way, but that has only happened ONCE in 8 years of TSM 5. Other domain specific options like frequency, and mode don't really impact us much. For Windows, the system state mgmt class is non standard, but since it's not the default, I don't see why I can't just add it as a non-default Management Class. I'm already moving away from a directory management class, how about moving away from the platform-specific domain? Thoughts, ideas? Gotchas, that I might be missing? As always, thanks, Sergio
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Our approach has been to export/import the node to another TSM instance under a different node name with a suffix or prefix that indicated the hold. THe mgt class is set to no-expire.We stop expiration until this copy is made. This approach has lets the node be processed as usual, and the copy can sit for as long as needed. Rick From: Vandeventer, Harold [BS] harold.vandeven...@ks.gov To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 05/07/2013 03:36 PM Subject:Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Great ideas Paul I'm preparing to build the alternate server without expiration approach as soon as I can scare up some resources. I'll look at the alternate Domain approach also. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Zarnowski Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:54 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well. What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain (i.e., LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration you just have to do this: UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD This works if you have all the same management classes defined in LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing a management class, then retention would be controlled by the grace period definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid. No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing management class names, just their attributes. If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same). We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of) the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run or has no effect. ..Paul At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote: To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / InfrastructureEm: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Unfortunately we've had expiration holds for tens of terabytes of data, so we haven't been able to use this approach. -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine On 05/07/13 14:39, Richard Rhodes wrote: Our approach has been to export/import the node to another TSM instance under a different node name with a suffix or prefix that indicated the hold. THe mgt class is set to no-expire.We stop expiration until this copy is made. This approach has lets the node be processed as usual, and the copy can sit for as long as needed. Rick From: Vandeventer, Harold [BS] harold.vandeven...@ks.gov To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 05/07/2013 03:36 PM Subject:Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Great ideas Paul I'm preparing to build the alternate server without expiration approach as soon as I can scare up some resources. I'll look at the alternate Domain approach also. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Zarnowski Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:54 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well. What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain (i.e., LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration you just have to do this: UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD This works if you have all the same management classes defined in LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing a management class, then retention would be controlled by the grace period definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid. No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing management class names, just their attributes. If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same). We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of) the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run or has no effect. ..Paul At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote: To all... I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been selected. It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a Litigation Hold demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. Allowing a LitigationHold=Yes would avoid expiration on the File Space. When the court case is lifted, simply revert to LitigationHold=No. The next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a no expire management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable feature. Thanks. Harold Vandeventer Systems Programmer State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S 910 SW Jackson (785) 296-0631 [Confidentiality notice:] *** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, Thank you. *** -- Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / InfrastructureEm: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
