Re: Slow Restores on Netware
As much as I do agree with the shrug issue at times, I fail to see where the fact that restores take ages is actually connected to the Netware side. We have exactly the same issue, and with all the experts we'v had here testing it out, not one has been able to point to the Netware side being the problem, and every one has managed to find problems with the TSM side. Be it very slow tape access, bad indexing, etc. I would be wrong to point the finger specifically at the TSM, and would go as far as to say that TSM and Netware do not quite mesh as Netware and other backups software do, but that's something I'v been over before on this list. The slow restores I have on some of my NT servers...do I shrug and say NT ? And the Unix's ? Mike -Original Message- From: Cory Heikel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â àåâåñè 28 2001 14:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow Restores on Netware I mostly sigh, shrug my shoulders and say... Netware -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott G Davis Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Slow Restores on Netware Is it me or is a restore of Netware data slow? I get at best 5.6g per hour off of a 21g per hour drive. TSM backs it up fast but takes way to long to restore. Does anyone else have this problem and if so what do you do?
Re: BRM Question
Ray, The terminolagy then is wrong as per what they explained, but I am still left in a situation when I need an additional UNIX based machine for the BMR main server. Do you have plans to bring out a version that sits on an NT machine, so that I will not need to include another OS in my backup server cluster ? I really can't go to management and sell this to them. Mike -Original Message- From: Ray Schafer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BRM Question Mike, This is NOT true. While it is true that the Bare Metal Restore Main Server must sit on a UNIX machine (AIX, Solaris, or HP), it does not matter to BMR what type of platform is used for the TSM server - so long as TCP/IP communications are used between the BMR Server and the TSM server, and the TSM Clients and the TSM server. There is a FAQ available for BMR, as well as other documentation on the TKG website: http://www.tkg.com/bmr/tsm. Mike Glassman - Admin wrote: All, We just had a meeting with our support people for TSM, regarding finishing the project we have. To cut things short, one of the options we required was Bare Metal Restore of NT and Unix servers. Our TSM server sits on an NT server. We were just informed (and this is what I want to ask about) that the BRM server (TSM) module, does not operate if the TSM server is on an NT server. (As I understand from their explanation, there is the TSM server side module and the client module). So in effect, we cannot impliment BRM due to this factor. Does anyone know if this is true ? Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent. File: Card for Ray Schafer
Re: bare metal restore for NT...
Ray, Do you have some idea when you will have BRM that will work when the TSM server is an NT server ? Mike -Original Message- From: Ray Schafer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Thank you, Jack. While we do offer BMR, The Kernel Group is an independent software vendor that has numerous relationships with IBM/Tivoli. In this particular case, our Bare Metal Restore product is re-marketed by IBM/Tivoli to extend the recovery capabilities TSM currently has with the system recovery that we provide. Palmadesso Jack wrote: You may want to look at the Kernel Groups Bare Metal Recovery tool. We are planning on bringing them in here. Supposedly its a one button recovery that interacts with TSM. By the way the Kernel Group is part of IBM. Jack -Original Message- From: Zosimo Noriega (ADNOC IST) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: bare metal restore for NT... I'm looking a tool or agent that i can use for complete disaster recovery for NT. I heard this tool, can you please provide me enough information. thanks a lot. Zosi Noriega ADNOC P.O. Box 898 AUH - AUE File: Card for Ray Schafer
Re: bare metal restore for NT...
Yes, so I understood, but with the amount of money we have already invested in the system, and with the fact that our dealers and integrators forgot to explain this issue untill yesterday (3 months after the initiall installation etc), I cannot now go and explain that I need a second server for BMR, as much as I would like to. So I am stuck. Mike -Original Message- From: Palmadesso Jack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... The wording is a bit hard to understand but I believe that the BMR server itself is a separate server and requires Unix. BMR does not care what the TSM server is itself. Check the FAQ out on their site. http://www.tkg.com/bmr/tsm This looks promising! -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Ray, Do you have some idea when you will have BRM that will work when the TSM server is an NT server ? Mike -Original Message- From: Ray Schafer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Thank you, Jack. While we do offer BMR, The Kernel Group is an independent software vendor that has numerous relationships with IBM/Tivoli. In this particular case, our Bare Metal Restore product is re-marketed by IBM/Tivoli to extend the recovery capabilities TSM currently has with the system recovery that we provide. Palmadesso Jack wrote: You may want to look at the Kernel Groups Bare Metal Recovery tool. We are planning on bringing them in here. Supposedly its a one button recovery that interacts with TSM. By the way the Kernel Group is part of IBM. Jack -Original Message- From: Zosimo Noriega (ADNOC IST) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: bare metal restore for NT... I'm looking a tool or agent that i can use for complete disaster recovery for NT. I heard this tool, can you please provide me enough information. thanks a lot. Zosi Noriega ADNOC P.O. Box 898 AUH - AUE File: Card for Ray Schafer
Re: bare metal restore for NT...
How can I put this. The total package cost us in excess of 60Kusd. Even an extra 10usd over that will make eyebrows rise. I am quite aware that there are cheap machines, and I'v actually considered that option, but I am still left in a situation where I have to explain why it is that I didn't know about this earlier. I'll live through it, but it has put a major dent in the relationship that we have with IBM, and we are IBM customers for nearly 10 years almost exclusivly (servers, support etc). Such is life. Now where did I put those old dat tapes and the BE software... Mike -Original Message- From: Palmadesso Jack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 16:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... If you are speaking about budgets then I hear you. Then again I am wondering what the minimum requirements are. Sun makes these new machines called Blades. Some are as cheap as 1300usd and perform similar an Ultra60. We are trying a few of them out now. That wouldn't be such a large investment. Otherwise there is always next years budget. -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Yes, so I understood, but with the amount of money we have already invested in the system, and with the fact that our dealers and integrators forgot to explain this issue untill yesterday (3 months after the initiall installation etc), I cannot now go and explain that I need a second server for BMR, as much as I would like to. So I am stuck. Mike -Original Message- From: Palmadesso Jack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... The wording is a bit hard to understand but I believe that the BMR server itself is a separate server and requires Unix. BMR does not care what the TSM server is itself. Check the FAQ out on their site. http://www.tkg.com/bmr/tsm This looks promising! -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Ray, Do you have some idea when you will have BRM that will work when the TSM server is an NT server ? Mike -Original Message- From: Ray Schafer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 22 2001 15:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bare metal restore for NT... Thank you, Jack. While we do offer BMR, The Kernel Group is an independent software vendor that has numerous relationships with IBM/Tivoli. In this particular case, our Bare Metal Restore product is re-marketed by IBM/Tivoli to extend the recovery capabilities TSM currently has with the system recovery that we provide. Palmadesso Jack wrote: You may want to look at the Kernel Groups Bare Metal Recovery tool. We are planning on bringing them in here. Supposedly its a one button recovery that interacts with TSM. By the way the Kernel Group is part of IBM. Jack -Original Message- From: Zosimo Noriega (ADNOC IST) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: bare metal restore for NT... I'm looking a tool or agent that i can use for complete disaster recovery for NT. I heard this tool, can you please provide me enough information. thanks a lot. Zosi Noriega ADNOC P.O. Box 898 AUH - AUE File: Card for Ray Schafer
BRM Question
All, We just had a meeting with our support people for TSM, regarding finishing the project we have. To cut things short, one of the options we required was Bare Metal Restore of NT and Unix servers. Our TSM server sits on an NT server. We were just informed (and this is what I want to ask about) that the BRM server (TSM) module, does not operate if the TSM server is on an NT server. (As I understand from their explanation, there is the TSM server side module and the client module). So in effect, we cannot impliment BRM due to this factor. Does anyone know if this is true ? Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Re: Japanese Filenames
Andy, Taking all you say into consideration, and fully understanding how hard it is to do what we are asking (which in my opinion should have been a major concern before shipping, and not afterwards), I am still unsatisfied. I am not going to bash one software against another, but with all due respect, if you do not support multilingual on English based systems, and some other OS's (such as Netware), then you should state so in letters as large as a 2 story building on the product casing. It's rather not fun in the least, to discover that one can't backup languages on OS's (NT, Novell) after having bought and installed the product. And this after moving from backup software that did just that and didn't blink an eye. I am very glad you have so many resources dedicated to NLS support, but I at least don't care if you have 1000 people working on the issue, I care that it is fixed and fixed FAST. And I am extremely glad that you have learnt to be politicaly correct and state that it's important to you, you'r working on it, and it may be here soon (no guarantees of course). Dissapointed, Mike Glassman Systems Security Admin Israel Airport Authority -Original Message- From: Andy Raibeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â îàé 15 2001 16:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Japanese Filenames USEUNICODEFILENAMES NO (The Default) TSM won't backup Japanese filenames unless you run the client on a Japanese NT server. Adding the Japanese codepage to a UK build won't work. USEUNICODEFILENAMES YES TSM will backup Japanese filenames most of the time, but occassionally dies a horrible death on certain filenames. With lots of people with lots of Japanese filenames, the client will fail more than it suceeeds. USEUNICODEFILENAMES is suppose to be used with Macintosh files, any other use is convenently unsupported by Tivoli. This is not a matter of convenience. USEUNICODEFILENAMES was *never* intended to provide the support you are seeking. It's purpose is strictly for support of Macintosh volumes on NTFS file systems (granted, though, the option would have been better named ENABLEMACFILESUPPORT, or something along those lines). Tivoli support (especially, the Japanese end) are no help whatsoever. As a company, Tivoli seem to have no concept that people do business in multiple languages, and as a backup product Tivoli need to support it. Recents failures, where the NT server product failed as soon as you run it under Japanese, German etc.. bears testiment to the fact, Tivoli aren't even testing their products under different languages. IBM/Tivoli fully understands the need for a global perspective, as we are a global company doing business all over the world. Please do not equate language support issues with have no concept that people do business in multiple languages. This is just not true. Agreed, the recent problems we have had with non-English character sets do not instill the greatest confidence in our NLS support. However, we do in fact have a large number of resources dedicated to NLS support, translation, and testing, and we are continuously working to improve our processes to (among other things) eliminate the kinds of problems you mention. Yes, we have stumbled in this arena, especially recently, but we have also made every effort to respond to the problems in as timely a fashion as possible, because we *do* understand the need for this support. Regarding support for file names comprised of characters from different character sets (i.e. Japanese file names on English systems), this is a long-standing requirement. It isn't here yet because we are ignoring it; rather, the implementation is not trivial. But it is something that we are actively working on and hope to deliver this year. (Standard caveat: this does not constitute a formal announcement or commitment.) Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Tivoli Systems Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend
Re: Comparison of Backup Products
From my point of view, all the problems I had were related to Tivoli clients being upgrade and none of the Netware servers were. In two such cases, the problems were fixed with a new TSA agent from Novell. ButOn servers where the clients were not upgraded (Tivoli), I had absolutely no such issues with TSA, not with files being unable to be backed up, or with restores. When I took the clients back to the previous version on the problem servers, and backreved the TSA to the origionals, I had no problems yet again. So I see your point, but I also see errors being generated by client upgrades and not Novell upgrades. I know about the 6 month issue where both worked together to get things fixed, but this was after Tivoli upgraded clients, or a newer version of TSM was used. Older versions still worked, and had I stayed at ADSM, I wouldn't have any need to upgrade any TSA agents at all. I am not putting all the blame on Tivoli, and as I said I use it and in general am satisfied with it. The reason I made my previous points was because I do not yet see TSM as the wonderous product it was and still is made out to be. As I said, I use Veritas and am very happy with it in it's present form, which is not compatible with my and our future growth needsand TSM is, and so I go with that. With all backup software there are problems, and as in all cases it still depends on the support and installation of both the server and clients correctly to get things running at the optimum, as well as with full vendor support from both sides for problems such as these. But I still say that the issues with the TSA modules (which by the way work with Veritas, Arcserve, and others quite fine) have to do with Tivoli. Mike -Original Message- From: Remeta, Mark [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 2001 17:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products Mike, how can you say it's a Tivoli issue?? I don't understand. I personally was involved with a NDS backup issue that took over 6 months of Tivoli and Novell "working together" that resulted in Novell sending us a custom TSA.NLM that worked. Tivoli is just issuing Novell API calls, they didn't write the OS, only the backup software. Mark -Original Message----- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products Mark, I would say not actually. The fact that the problems centralized around the TSA modules in many cases, was based on the fact that TSM/ADSM versions changed, not the TSA modules. In every case, Netware was the one to bring out a new TSA module (including some that weren't in SP's) in order to fix TSM/ADSM created problems. I personaly had this issue with 2 seperate client upgrades from IBM, upgrades which happened in a "same environment" Netware environment. Meaning that there were absolutely no changes to the Netware systems, but there were changes to the clients. As well, TSM over Netware is one of the few still existing backup programs which utilizes a non-GUI client on Netware servers (and please don't someone come up and tell me that the web interface is GUI). And does not support multi languages on Netware systems (lets see you try backup Hebrew, Arabic, French off of a Netware file system and then restore it - if you can even work out which file is which...). I use TSM and Veritas here, and I have had 20 times the amount of problems with TSM/ADSM then with Veritas. In fact, I have never had a problem with Veritas that I have not solved in less then 24 hours. And yes, I have supposedly excellent support for TSM/ADSM directly from both IBM here in Israel, and a gold retailer who is here once a week at least. TSM is a wonderfull product, and I am hoping that once all the quirks are ironed out, it will actually perform to standard, but after having had so many problems with it in the past, I think it's fair to say that TSM/ADSM is like everyone else in this market. If you have the right support, your ok (eventually), if you don't, your in bad waters. The fact of the matter is that I go TSM because it will (or is supposed) to give me what I want, a fast easy to use, centralized backup point for all my servers, no matter what the OS (almost), which it does. But I sure as hell don't bow down to it and kiss whomever made it. Mike -Original Message- From: Remeta, Mark [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 2001 17:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products It's been my experience that most of the problems Tivoli products have running on NetWare are actually Novell problems. Just my .02. Mark -Original Message- From: Tim Melly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Re: Comparison of Backup Products
Mark, I would say not actually. The fact that the problems centralized around the TSA modules in many cases, was based on the fact that TSM/ADSM versions changed, not the TSA modules. In every case, Netware was the one to bring out a new TSA module (including some that weren't in SP's) in order to fix TSM/ADSM created problems. I personaly had this issue with 2 seperate client upgrades from IBM, upgrades which happened in a "same environment" Netware environment. Meaning that there were absolutely no changes to the Netware systems, but there were changes to the clients. As well, TSM over Netware is one of the few still existing backup programs which utilizes a non-GUI client on Netware servers (and please don't someone come up and tell me that the web interface is GUI). And does not support multi languages on Netware systems (lets see you try backup Hebrew, Arabic, French off of a Netware file system and then restore it - if you can even work out which file is which...). I use TSM and Veritas here, and I have had 20 times the amount of problems with TSM/ADSM then with Veritas. In fact, I have never had a problem with Veritas that I have not solved in less then 24 hours. And yes, I have supposedly excellent support for TSM/ADSM directly from both IBM here in Israel, and a gold retailer who is here once a week at least. TSM is a wonderfull product, and I am hoping that once all the quirks are ironed out, it will actually perform to standard, but after having had so many problems with it in the past, I think it's fair to say that TSM/ADSM is like everyone else in this market. If you have the right support, your ok (eventually), if you don't, your in bad waters. The fact of the matter is that I go TSM because it will (or is supposed) to give me what I want, a fast easy to use, centralized backup point for all my servers, no matter what the OS (almost), which it does. But I sure as hell don't bow down to it and kiss whomever made it. Mike -Original Message- From: Remeta, Mark [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 2001 17:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products It's been my experience that most of the problems Tivoli products have running on NetWare are actually Novell problems. Just my .02. Mark -Original Message- From: Tim Melly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products David, Thanks for the insight. I too believe that *SM is the best "enterprise class" backup product currently available. The biggest issue we're having is with the Novell client, the 3.7 version memory leak caused the Novell servers to crash, did not restore with the proper rights, the 4.1 version scheduler doesn't work. Unfortunately, Novell is where we do most of our restores so the problem is magnified. My management has requested information on the advantages/disadvantages of the available backup solutions and I appreciate the non-sales centric feedback. Regards, Tim "David M. Hendrix" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dmhendri@FEDcc: EX.COM Subject: Re: Comparison of Backup Products Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIST.EDU 03/28/2001 10:19 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Tim, We've been through a few iterations of evaluations of these products. We recently added Netbackup along with TSM as our supported software platforms. We run on HP, Sun, Win2K and IBM platforms, use EMC and HDS disk arrays, EMC switches (okay - McData) and use 3590B/E, 9480 and LTO devices (and hopefully a Gator 64K soon). Here is my take: they are both good products and we have a guidline design document for deployment and implementation for each product paired with whatever software. However, we have discovered that from an enterprise class deployment, TSM is clearly the winner. Implementing failover servers, messaging (integration into our ops VPO screens), and support are the key issues we have run up against. We have also implemented the Veritas HSM product for our imaging process. We were very disappointed that the product is not well integrated with Netbackup (it uses media manager but things like the vault product and failover do not work with the HSM product - TSM HSM would have been a much better choice but I was overridden). Veritas is a solid product and we are having teething pains. The cure always seems to be "Veritas Consulting Services". These aren't cheap. There are third party companies that can help you as well and can
Re: WinNT Client Upgrade - Overwrite or Uninstall/Reinstall
In cases such as this, it is much more advisable to go the full uninstall-reinstall route (after as you say, backing up the required files). Duplicate entries in the registry under Control Panel, more then once also refer to duplicate entries elswhere, so it's more then just a cosmetic. Where it comes to such stuff, go the long way allways. That's what I do. Mike -Original Message- From: Scott Behrens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 2001 15:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WinNT Client Upgrade - Overwrite or Uninstall/Reinstall Please excuse if this is obvious - several archive searches turned up nothing, and I didn't see a reference in Richard Sims' Quick Facts. Relevant Installation Info: TSM Server 4.1.1.0 on AIX 4.3.3 WinNT Clients: TSM Client 4.1.1.0 on Intel NT 4.0 SP5 or SP6 Goal: Upgrade of WinNT TSM Clients from 4.1.1.0 to 4.1.2.12 to handle DST problem before April 1 (avoiding 4.1.1.16 because of potential memory-leak problem (IC28969)) If I install the 4.1.2.12 client over the top of the existing 4.1.1.0 client, then I end up with two 'Tivoli Storage Manager Client' entries in the 'Control Panel--Add/Remove Programs' (and duplicate entries for the two installed products in the Registry as might be expected). The 'Installing the Clients' manual, Version 4.1, Chapter 4. has a section, 'Reinstalling the Client' , which implies that if you are installing to the same location, you can just install over the top of the previous version with no uninstall required. I want to provide our NT sysadmins a straight-forward procedure for doing this upgrade, and don't know whether to suggest an uninstall-reinstall (ensuring that they have a backup of the dsm.opt and dsmsched.log), or just have them do an install over the top of the existing client (and put the footnote about the duplicate registry entries in the 'Book of Who Cares'.) Any thoughts on best practices? Thanks, Scott Behrens
Client 4.1.1 for Netware not accepting login parameters
Anyone, I have just installed the 4.1.1 Netware client on one of my servers, after we shifted from ADSM to TSM server. After I enter the line to start a scheduled backup, I get the following prompt : Please enter NetWare user for "nwserver": In the previous clients, If this happened, I entered the user who has rights for backup, using the full contextual name, ie, .backup.organization When I do that now, it throws me out, and the log file (error) shows the following : 03/05/2001 17:08:10 sessOpen: Error 137 from signon authentication. 03/05/2001 17:08:19 cuSignOnResp: Server rejected session; result code: 53 03/05/2001 17:08:19 sessOpen: Error 53 receiving SignOnResp verb from server 03/05/2001 17:08:19 ANS1353E Session rejected: Unknown or incorrect ID entered The log file shows : 03/05/2001 17:08:10 Querying server for next scheduled event. 03/05/2001 17:08:10 Node Name: MASKORET 03/05/2001 17:08:10 Please enter your user id MASKORET: ANS1353E Session rejected: Unknown or incorrect ID entered 03/05/2001 17:08:19 Scheduler has been stopped. Does anyone have any idea what format the user name should take to be accepted ? I have only one user who has backup rights, and I do not want to create a user for backups on each server. Anyone ? Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Re: Novell Issues
Rename the filespacename where ? Mike -Original Message- From: Jelle Komrij [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 2001 15:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Novell Issues Marc, There seems to be an upgrade problem to long file name space with the 3.7.x servers and up. Work around: Rename the old filespacename. Marc David wrote: Ever since I've upgraded from ADSM 3.1.07 for Novell. I'm now running the latest client TSM 4.1.2. I have volume that were converted to LONGFILE names. And some that didn't the new client was to be the fix. But the backup still dies very quick with errors. When i do a q files in DSMC the volume still has NTWFS for file space name. Activity Log Date and Time Message -- 12/20/2000 13:38:15 ANRD sminv.c(2005): Duplicate object encountered during import or rename. 12/20/2000 13:38:17 ANR0403I Session 3810 ended for node SSTARFLE (NetWare). 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4952I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects inspected: 228 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4954I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects backed up:0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4958I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects updated: 0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4960I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects rebound: 0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4957I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects deleted: 0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4970I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects expired: 0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4959I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of objects failed: 0 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4961I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Total number of bytes transferred: 116 Bytes 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4963I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Data transfer time:0.00 sec 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4966I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Network data transfer rate:0.00 KB/sec 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4967I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Aggregate data transfer rate: 0.01 KB/sec 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4968I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Objects compressed by:0% 12/20/2000 13:38:19 ANE4964I (Session: 3809, Node: SSTARFLE) Elapsed processing time:00:00:07 Has anyone run into this same problem, I have MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP NO to convert to longfile names but. It still never does.
Re: Backup Exec
The answer is yes. You need to define a storage pool for the BE on the TSM server. See the module for this on the Veritas site. Mike -Original Message- From: Jacques Butcher [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 2001 8:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Backup Exec Can Backup Exec be setup in such a way that it sends data off to TSM without having a storage device locally attached to the server it's running on? I.e. TSM handles the backup device (library) as well as manage all the volumes. Any comments will be greatly appreciated Jacques Butcher.
Clients for Win9X etc costing money ?
Anyone, I have just been given an offer for our new in progress TSM system. The offer also includes clients for various OS's, such as Win9X, WinME, Win2K (WS) at a cost. I am a bit surprised at this, as I know I can dld the clients foe win32 for free of the TSM site, so is our peovider BS'sing us or are the clients now at cost as well as apposed the what they were in the past ? Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Force removal of email address
All, I have a user I am trying to remove from the list. I have sent all the necessary commands to the listserv, but he is still getting all the email. Anyone know of who I can contact or how I can force remove him ? He's about to leave and I do not want to get the emails to my Administrative account all the time. Thanks, Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange
Del, From what you say it seems it should be a rather forwards sort of backup-while-active and as easy to restore. Yet in Rene's email of a short while ago today, it seems that he has to work rather hard once the restore has been done. I am very much questioning the need to drop BE and try the TSM Exchange backup, as I have had extremely good results with BE, and the restore is easy, fast and no need of manually applying logs to the database in order to get things in shape. A simple restore, reboot, and sometimes, but rarely, an ISINTEG. One other issue I like with BE today, is the ability to do a full restore including OS and have everything work in the time it takes to restore + 1 hour. I am still not so hot on the TSM version of Intelligent Disaster Recovery, or Bare Metal Restore as it's called here. Mike -Original Message- From: Del Hoobler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 14:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Mike, Seems that a lot of you are happy with the exchange backup. So let me ask if I may : 1. Do you backup Exchange while active or do you shut down the services prior to backup ? In order to use Tivoli Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange, your services must be running. It uses the Microsoft provided APIs that were built to run online backups. If you bring down the services and run a backup, you cannot use TDP for Exchange. You could use the standard backup archive client...BUT and this is a big BUT... ...you will not get online backup data integrity checking that is built into the Microsoft APIs and thus TDP for Exchange. When you use TDP for Exchange, every page of the database is read and check-summed to make sure it is consistent. 2. How many of you have had to restore your whole Exchange from backup, and how long did it take, and did it work fully or were there any glitches that had to be retouched to get it all running ? I want to answer part of this question... You should not have to "retouch" anything. Any if you do have to use ESEUTIL or whatever your favorite tool is... then we want to know about it because the APIs were built so that you do not have to do this. Thanks, Mike Del Del Hoobler IBM Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange
Rene, Ahhh, ok. Now that's more reasonable. Why then don't you perform a full every day ? Wouldn't that cut your log time down to almost 0 ? Or is it a question of backup time ? At the moment, I have a backup time of around 2 hours for 24GB of data, which includes the NT system as well as the Exchange online stuff. Have you thought about a Bare Metal / Intelligent Disaster Recovery solution for your Exchange server ? Mike -Original Message- From: Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 15:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Mike, I have no work to do, Exchange does it automatically ! It just need time... Regards, René Lambelet Nestec S.A. / Informatique du Centre 55, av. Nestlé CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland) *+41'21'924'35'43 7+41'21'924'28'88 * K1-117 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our site: http://www.nestle.com This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Del, From what you say it seems it should be a rather forwards sort of backup-while-active and as easy to restore. Yet in Rene's email of a short while ago today, it seems that he has to work rather hard once the restore has been done. I am very much questioning the need to drop BE and try the TSM Exchange backup, as I have had extremely good results with BE, and the restore is easy, fast and no need of manually applying logs to the database in order to get things in shape. A simple restore, reboot, and sometimes, but rarely, an ISINTEG. One other issue I like with BE today, is the ability to do a full restore including OS and have everything work in the time it takes to restore + 1 hour. I am still not so hot on the TSM version of Intelligent Disaster Recovery, or Bare Metal Restore as it's called here. Mike -Original Message- From: Del Hoobler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 14:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Mike, Seems that a lot of you are happy with the exchange backup. So let me ask if I may : 1. Do you backup Exchange while active or do you shut down the services prior to backup ? In order to use Tivoli Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange, your services must be running. It uses the Microsoft provided APIs that were built to run online backups. If you bring down the services and run a backup, you cannot use TDP for Exchange. You could use the standard backup archive client...BUT and this is a big BUT... ...you will not get online backup data integrity checking that is built into the Microsoft APIs and thus TDP for Exchange. When you use TDP for Exchange, every page of the database is read and check-summed to make sure it is consistent. 2. How many of you have had to restore your whole Exchange from backup, and how long did it take, and did it work fully or were there any glitches that had to be retouched to get it all running ? I want to answer part of this question... You should not have to "retouch" anything. Any if you do have to use ESEUTIL or whatever your favorite tool is... then we want to know about it because the APIs were built so that you do not have to do this. Thanks, Mike Del Del Hoobler IBM Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange
Ahhh, totaly understandable. Thanks, Mike -Original Message- From: Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 15:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange it is just a question of load, we backup more than 180 servers / night, bringing about 250 GB into our adsm server via network (in fact 2 networks, production and service). Rene -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Rene, Ahhh, ok. Now that's more reasonable. Why then don't you perform a full every day ? Wouldn't that cut your log time down to almost 0 ? Or is it a question of backup time ? At the moment, I have a backup time of around 2 hours for 24GB of data, which includes the NT system as well as the Exchange online stuff. Have you thought about a Bare Metal / Intelligent Disaster Recovery solution for your Exchange server ? Mike -Original Message- From: Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 15:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Mike, I have no work to do, Exchange does it automatically ! It just need time... Regards, René Lambelet Nestec S.A. / Informatique du Centre 55, av. Nestlé CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland) *+41'21'924'35'43 7+41'21'924'28'88 * K1-117 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our site: http://www.nestle.com This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. -Original Message- From: Mike Glassman - Admin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Del, From what you say it seems it should be a rather forwards sort of backup-while-active and as easy to restore. Yet in Rene's email of a short while ago today, it seems that he has to work rather hard once the restore has been done. I am very much questioning the need to drop BE and try the TSM Exchange backup, as I have had extremely good results with BE, and the restore is easy, fast and no need of manually applying logs to the database in order to get things in shape. A simple restore, reboot, and sometimes, but rarely, an ISINTEG. One other issue I like with BE today, is the ability to do a full restore including OS and have everything work in the time it takes to restore + 1 hour. I am still not so hot on the TSM version of Intelligent Disaster Recovery, or Bare Metal Restore as it's called here. Mike -Original Message- From: Del Hoobler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 14:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Mike, Seems that a lot of you are happy with the exchange backup. So let me ask if I may : 1. Do you backup Exchange while active or do you shut down the services prior to backup ? In order to use Tivoli Data Protection for Microsoft Exchange, your services must be running. It uses the Microsoft provided APIs that were built to run online backups. If you bring down the services and run a backup, you cannot use TDP for Exchange. You could use the standard backup archive client...BUT and this is a big BUT... ...you will not get online backup data integrity checking that is built into the Microsoft APIs and thus TDP for Exchange. When you use TDP for Exchange, every page of the database is read and check-summed to make sure it is consistent. 2. How many of you have had to restore your whole Exchange from backup, and how long did it take, and did it work fully or were there any glitches that had to be retouched to get it all running ? I want to answer part of this question... You should not have to "retouch" anything. Any if you do have to use ESEUTIL or whatever your favorite tool is... then we want to know about it because the APIs were built so that you do not have to do this. Thanks, Mike Del Del Hoobler IBM Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netware
Larry, If you perform a manual backup instead of a scheduled one, does it work ok ? Mike -Original Message- From: Larry Way [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: â ðåáîáø 14 2000 18:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Netware We have recently upgrade of server to TSM 3.7.2. Have had problems with our Netware client ever since. During the nightly run of these clients the TSM service is denied access to the NDS tree. Anyone have any thoughts? User has supervisor rights to the root of the tree...Thanks in advance Larry Way SL09/100D 408-743-4242 Voice (California) 703-345-7143 Voice (Virginia) 408-690-2327 Cell 408-743-4201 Fax
Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange
Seems that a lot of you are happy with the exchange backup. So let me ask if I may : 1. Do you backup Exchange while active or do you shut down the services prior to backup ? 2. How many of you have had to restore your whole Exchange from backup, and how long did it take, and did it work fully or were there any glitches that had to be retouched to get it all running ? Thanks, Mike -Original Message- From: Palmadesso Jack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: á ðåáîáø 13 2000 22:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange I'd have to say we are happy also. We have over 18 exchange servers with 10 to 30 gig dbs. All 18 incremental finish well within 2 hours each day. Full backups take 1 to 4 hours each depending on the load on our AIX ADSM server. All Exchange backups are done over gigabit Ethernet. One drawback is Microsoft's lack of an API that allows message extraction from the backups. We have a mixed Notes/Exchange mail environment. The Notes users still enjoy the ability to restore deleted messages long after they were "accidentally" removed. Exchange users have a 15 day deleted item retention period they have to go by. -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Very happy! We have nine (9) MS Exchange servers with 35GB information stores. Our backup window is 2 hours and TDP for MSExchange does this just fine. Of course, you have to consider the infrastructure here (Gigabit Ethernet). All in all, it works well and the Exchange admins are happier with TSM than they were with Veritas. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 11:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange happy with it, backuping 4-5 GB(hour), our main exchange server has a 17 GB database. 2 others have about 12 GB database. René Lambelet Nestec S.A. / Informatique du Centre 55, av. Nestlé CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland) *+41'21'924'35'43 7+41'21'924'28'88 * K1-117 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our site: http://www.nestle.com This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. -Original Message- From: Stefan Holzwarth [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Your experience with Tivoli Data Protection for MS Exchange Hello, we intend to use the tivoli agent for exchange, but have no experience regarding performance (backup restore), easyness, robustness Because of the importance of the exchange environment we are looking for reference installations and we want to know of your experiences. Our environment: - 2 * MS exchange server 5.5 (10GB/30GB) - network (tokenringatm backbone) - 3.7 NT-clients - 3.7.3.6 TSM Server on MVS -2 * 3590 Tapelibraries Thanks a lot for your input Stefan Holzwarth -- -- -- Stefan Holzwarth ADAC e.V. (Rechenzentrum, Produktionsplanung und Organisation) Am Westpark 8, 81373 München Tel.: (089) 7676-5212, Fax: (089) 76768924 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 4.0 GCM/S d- s+: a C+(++) ULA++ P+++ L+(++) E--- W+++ N++ o-- K? w+(++) O+ M V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP-+ t+ 5+ !X R tv b !DI D G e+++ h--- r z? ---END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Re: Client ver 3.7.2 - no SA software
Andy, Gill, I did indeed do the custom install. And I noticed that there is the command line interface, but I was referring to the SA GUI interface as with version 3.1. Is there no longer a GUI interface ? I am as said by Lawrence, using the GUI of the 3.1, but I had thought the newer versions would also have some sort of GUI interface. Makes it much much easier to add nodes, check statuses of backups, kill jobs etc. Anyone on the SA GUI for 3.7 and above ? Mike -Original Message- From: Andy Raibeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã ðåáîáø 08 2000 16:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Client ver 3.7.2 - no SA software Did you do a "Typical" or "Custom" install? Beginning with the 3.7 client, the Administrative command line interface is no longer part of the typical install in order to bring it in line with the meaning of "typical". The rationale is that the typical TSM user is an end user who does not require this capability. If you run a custom install, you can select the Admin component for install. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM/Tivoli Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked." Mike Glassman - Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/08/2000 02:45:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Andrew Raibeck/Tivoli Systems) Subject: Client ver 3.7.2 - no SA software All, I just downloaded the TSM client for Windows (Intell) version as above, and I noticed after the install, that even tho I told it I wanted to have the administrative software installed as well, that it does not install and administrative client. Since I need this Administrative capability, anyone have any ideas how I can get at it ? Or what to install ? I need the same type of Administrative capabilities as were available in the 3.1.08 client version. Thanks, Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Client ver 3.7.2 - no SA software
All, I just downloaded the TSM client for Windows (Intell) version as above, and I noticed after the install, that even tho I told it I wanted to have the administrative software installed as well, that it does not install and administrative client. Since I need this Administrative capability, anyone have any ideas how I can get at it ? Or what to install ? I need the same type of Administrative capabilities as were available in the 3.1.08 client version. Thanks, Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Q re TSM on NT as apposed to AS400
All, We are currently running ADSM on an AS400, with an attached 3494 (OS/2 internall OS) containing two internall 3590E tape drives. We are checking to see if we should continue to use this current system, and simply upgrade the ADSM system to the latest TSM version, or if it is better to move to an NT system hosting the TSM and the tape drive attached. Any thoughts re this ? Thanks, Mike Glassman System Security Admin Israeli Airports Authority Ben-Gurion Airport http://www.ben-gurion-airport.co.il Tel : 972-3-9710785 Fax : 972-3-9710939 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usage of this email address or any email address at iaa.gov.il for the purpose of sales pitches, SPAM or any other such unwanted garbage, is illegal, and any person, whether corporate or alone doing so, will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Re: Novell and TSM version 3.7 client.
Using the client on a NW5.1 server (3 actually) with no issues so far, but then, I don't use it to backup NDS at all. Mike -Original Message- From: Mark Brown [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã ñôèîáø 27 2000 19:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Novell and TSM version 3.7 client. Hello, As far as I can tell the TSM 3.7 client is not Novell 5.1 certified but I would like to know if you are are using the TSM client anyways. If you are using it are you having any problems with it??? -- Mark Brown Operations Supervisor = Tel --- 514-398-2321 Fax --- 514-398-6876 E-mail --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli
So I'd heard, but I don't have the liberty of choice, so I'm stuck with it on the AS system. Mike -Original Message- From: Joshua S. Bassi [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ä ñôèîáø 21 2000 17:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli AS/400 you say? It's probably the slowest *SM server out of the 9 supported. NT TSM server are typically much faster than their 400 counterparts. -- Joshua S. Bassi Senior Technical Consultant Symatrix Technology, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Glassman - Admin Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Kelly, I don't know regarding Arcserve as you couldn't pay me to go near it, but BE I do know. Restore of a 600MB directory (talking small here) on ADSM to a Netware server takes up to (no exageration here) 6 hours. And this is after we made all sorts of changes (not me, our AS400 guy as that's where it sits, I just complain) to the system. Under BE, the same 600MB takes under 45 minutes. In both cases we are talking about a backup system sitting on another system and not the backed up one. Mike -Original Message- From: Kelly J. Lipp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã ñôèîáø 20 2000 23:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Could someone with experience doing large restores with ArcServe or BackupExec provide some performance numbers? I've been in shops where the backups were taking a very long time. Longer than my TSM backup took. I never witnessed a restore but how can it be better. I want the facts. I'm tired of hearing about how much faster ArcServe and BackupExec are (in theory) compared to TSM in reality. I'm sick and tired of it and I won't take it anymore! This is what happens when you TSM 24 hours per day. Your brain. Your brain on TSM. Not a pretty picture. Kelly J. Lipp Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc. PO Box 51313 Colorado Springs CO 80949-1313 (719) 531-5926 Fax: (719) 260-5991 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.storsol.com www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith E. Pruitt Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivo Jeff, we too have a problem with small files. At first I thought it was a Netware thing because the servers we have the greatest amount of files on reside on the Netware servers. But reading emails from several users I see that I may have a future problem on the NT side. We store Word and WordPerfect docs on two Netware 5 machines and each server holds about 1.8 Million files apiece. Needless to say these files are not that big. It took over 11 hours to back each of the servers up and they total around 30GB per server. We were forced to perform a Full backup because our director and other new admins don't understand and feel comfortable with the "incremental forever" logic. I would hate to see what a restore would look like. In contrast, we just backed up a directory on an NT server we are using for our Backoffice conversion and that dir totals 35GB. That took 2h20m. We also performed a large restore from one AIX machine to another one of about 25GB. Less than 2 hours to restore. We have tweaked our Netware and AIX ADSM server according to performance guides and other suggestions and still have issues with small files. We will be moving our documents from Netware to NT soon and our NT guys like to refer to ADSM as crap. They are used to Arcserve but our now raving about BackupExec. It is going to be extremely difficult to explain if our huge machine can't keep up with their backup server. I know that overall ADSM is a better and more stable product but what do you do when you have a mixture of servers with large databases(ADSM's favorite) and (the more common) servers with small files that Arcserve and others like? I'm hoping another ADSM/TSM user has some tricks or tweaks that can help in this area. Anyone from any universities out there? Reply Separator Subject:Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Author: Jeff Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 09/20/2000 12:21 PM Our NT group was a hard sell for replacing Arcserve with TSM. Since the switch, I have taken quite a beating about TSM restore performance. Our NT admins take the position, "we'll try TSM but if the performance doesn't impro
Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli
To answer your q's James, 1. ADSM sits on an AS400. BE sits on either an NT seerver or another Novell server. Client on the server is (ADSMwise) version 3, Release 1, Level 0.8. 2. Network is Ethernet. All servers are connected 100MBHD. Backbone is 650MB FO. 3. Damned if I know I'm afraid. On the Netware and NT is a DLT 35/70MB. I don't know the model on the AS, but it's a changer (IBM) auto with 350 Tapes installed (One huge monster of a box). 4. Over 4000 files in the directory. 5. The AS server is dedicated for ADSM, altho it can be a backup system to one of our other AS systems (holds the files which are stored there once a day via VISION link and not the Network link). I too do a lot more single file restores then full directory or system, and thank the gods for that. I cannot even try to imagine a full system restore at these slow rates. Single file restores also take their time, but I can wait 5 minutes for a file as apposed to having to wait 6 hours for 4000 files, or longer if I need to restore Giga's of data. All restores on ADSM are done via the web interface, which may possibly have something to do with speed, altho I doubt to that extent. I live with it. Sadly, but I do. Mike -Original Message- From: Purdon, James [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ä ñôèîáø 21 2000 15:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli When reading this I have to ask 600Mb how? 1. What kind of systems (ADSM/BE server, client)? 2. What kind of network? 3. What kind of tape devices? 4. How many files in the directory? 5. Is the ADSM server shared or dedicated? Its possible to create patholgical cases that can trash any backup system's backup and restore times. In our case, thanks to raid, we do a lot more single file restores than restores of entire filesystems. Jim -- From: Mike Glassman - Admin[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Kelly, I don't know regarding Arcserve as you couldn't pay me to go near it, but BE I do know. Restore of a 600MB directory (talking small here) on ADSM to a Netware server takes up to (no exageration here) 6 hours. And this is after we made all sorts of changes (not me, our AS400 guy as that's where it sits, I just complain) to the system. Under BE, the same 600MB takes under 45 minutes. In both cases we are talking about a backup system sitting on another system and not the backed up one. Mike -Original Message- From: Kelly J. Lipp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã ñôèîáø 20 2000 23:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Could someone with experience doing large restores with ArcServe or BackupExec provide some performance numbers? I've been in shops where the backups were taking a very long time. Longer than my TSM backup took. I never witnessed a restore but how can it be better. I want the facts. I'm tired of hearing about how much faster ArcServe and BackupExec are (in theory) compared to TSM in reality. I'm sick and tired of it and I won't take it anymore! This is what happens when you TSM 24 hours per day. Your brain. Your brain on TSM. Not a pretty picture. Kelly J. Lipp Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc. PO Box 51313 Colorado Springs CO 80949-1313 (719) 531-5926 Fax: (719) 260-5991 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.storsol.com www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith E. Pruitt Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivo Jeff, we too have a problem with small files. At first I thought it was a Netware thing because the servers we have the greatest amount of files on reside on the Netware servers. But reading emails from several users I see that I may have a future problem on the NT side. We store Word and WordPerfect docs on two Netware 5 machines and each server holds about 1.8 Million files apiece. Needless to say these files are not that big. It took over 11 hours to back each of the servers up and they total around 30GB per server. We were forced to perform a Full backup because our director and other new admins don't understand and feel comfortable with the "incremental forever" logic. I would hate to see what a restore would look like. In contrast, we just backed up a directory on an NT server we are using for our Backoffice conversion and that
Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli
Kelly, I don't know regarding Arcserve as you couldn't pay me to go near it, but BE I do know. Restore of a 600MB directory (talking small here) on ADSM to a Netware server takes up to (no exageration here) 6 hours. And this is after we made all sorts of changes (not me, our AS400 guy as that's where it sits, I just complain) to the system. Under BE, the same 600MB takes under 45 minutes. In both cases we are talking about a backup system sitting on another system and not the backed up one. Mike -Original Message- From: Kelly J. Lipp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã ñôèîáø 20 2000 23:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Could someone with experience doing large restores with ArcServe or BackupExec provide some performance numbers? I've been in shops where the backups were taking a very long time. Longer than my TSM backup took. I never witnessed a restore but how can it be better. I want the facts. I'm tired of hearing about how much faster ArcServe and BackupExec are (in theory) compared to TSM in reality. I'm sick and tired of it and I won't take it anymore! This is what happens when you TSM 24 hours per day. Your brain. Your brain on TSM. Not a pretty picture. Kelly J. Lipp Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc. PO Box 51313 Colorado Springs CO 80949-1313 (719) 531-5926 Fax: (719) 260-5991 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.storsol.com www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith E. Pruitt Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivo Jeff, we too have a problem with small files. At first I thought it was a Netware thing because the servers we have the greatest amount of files on reside on the Netware servers. But reading emails from several users I see that I may have a future problem on the NT side. We store Word and WordPerfect docs on two Netware 5 machines and each server holds about 1.8 Million files apiece. Needless to say these files are not that big. It took over 11 hours to back each of the servers up and they total around 30GB per server. We were forced to perform a Full backup because our director and other new admins don't understand and feel comfortable with the "incremental forever" logic. I would hate to see what a restore would look like. In contrast, we just backed up a directory on an NT server we are using for our Backoffice conversion and that dir totals 35GB. That took 2h20m. We also performed a large restore from one AIX machine to another one of about 25GB. Less than 2 hours to restore. We have tweaked our Netware and AIX ADSM server according to performance guides and other suggestions and still have issues with small files. We will be moving our documents from Netware to NT soon and our NT guys like to refer to ADSM as crap. They are used to Arcserve but our now raving about BackupExec. It is going to be extremely difficult to explain if our huge machine can't keep up with their backup server. I know that overall ADSM is a better and more stable product but what do you do when you have a mixture of servers with large databases(ADSM's favorite) and (the more common) servers with small files that Arcserve and others like? I'm hoping another ADSM/TSM user has some tricks or tweaks that can help in this area. Anyone from any universities out there? Reply Separator Subject:Slow restore for large NT client outcome.. appeal to Tivoli Author: Jeff Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 09/20/2000 12:21 PM Our NT group was a hard sell for replacing Arcserve with TSM. Since the switch, I have taken quite a beating about TSM restore performance. Our NT admins take the position, "we'll try TSM but if the performance doesn't improve we are going with a tried and true solution like Compaq Enterprise Backup. TSM seems to us like a UNIX product trying to make it in the NT space. It is not typically selected by companies for NT backup and recovery". Not a word for word quote but generally sums up their position. The Compaq solution would use Arcserve from what I've been told. I know Tivoli/IBM have tried to address the small files issue with things like small file aggregation but I haven't noticed much improvement from version to version for big restores of servers with small files. I've heard different reasons for slow performance with small files over the years like the amount of TSM database lookups, NT file system processing/inefficiencies, etc.I have suggested to our NT admins that we break that big D: partition into multiple smaller partitions so I can collocate by filespace and restore multiple drives concurrently. Frankly, they are not interested in changing the
Re: NDS backups
These are NDS objects. We get exactly the same issue showing when ours gets backed up, even tho we know for a fact that the size of the files is much smaller. We put it down to a quirk in ADSM. By the way, we do NOT trust the ADSM NDS backups as a restore-able backup. All our NDS backups are done to a seperate tape for safety reasons (as in, ADSM failing to restore NDS on more then one occassion claiming it didn't have rights when it did). Mike -Original Message- From: David Browne. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã àåâåñè 02 2000 22:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NDS backups My network guy was monitoring a backup and asked me if the number that appears after the" Normal File--" is the size of the file being backed up. It appears all of these files are the same size and he is telling me they shouldn't be very large. Could TSM be using up space unnecessarily? This is a Netware 4.11 server with TSM 3.7.1 on it. Can someone give me some information? Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=Lms6224 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=Mjr3663 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=Mmf2355 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=Mmk7095 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=MWH4505 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=Netman [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=NetShield_PI MKT1 [Sent] Normal File-- 2,097,152 .[Root].O=HUM.OU=Area42.OU=PIN.CN=PINMKT1
Re: Restoring inactive file to Novell
Tomas, You have two options. The one which is easiest is to start using the web access part of the ADSM which will then allow you a graphical interface of sorts, and which is a million times easier to work then the command line. The second option is of course the command line, and then you have to give it the -INA and -PI parameters. the -INA is inactive, and the -PI is Pick to chose the files to restore. In my opinion, go with the web access and throw the command line away forever. The manuals explain how to get it running. Mike -Original Message- From: Tomas Hallin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: ã àåâåñè 02 2000 21:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Restoring inactive file to Novell Hello, I'm wondering how to restore an inactive file to a Novell client. In Windows, I'd use the GUI to select "show inactive files", but since there's no GUI with the Novell client, how is it done? Thanks, /Tomas Tomas Hallin Affinity Technology Group Columbia, SC
