Re: Data won't stay in new storage pool
Check the include/exclude lists on the client and client option sets on the server. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kliewer, Vern [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/02 11:58 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Data won't stay in new storage pool I just moved an AIX node out of one primary sequential storage pool into another primary sequential storage pool. As part of the process I did Move data processes for all volumes for that node from the old storage pool to the new storage pool. The pools were both collocated at the time, so this was easy. Everything worked fine and 100 percent of the data for that node moved as expected. All new backups for that node go to the new pool. Except for one small subdirectory. It has about 8 small files in it. It is not NFS mounted. It is not a filesystem or filespace unto itself. It is about 200kb total space in a filesystem/filespace with about 3gb in it. It is a 5th level sub-directory of the /home filesystem. There are 50 other similarly named, permissioned and owned sub-directories with the same kind of content in the parent directory. I can find nothing unique about this sub-directory. And yet 3 nights in a row, when backing up this node, this sub-directory insists on going back to the previous storage pool. 150gb of data each night stay in the correct storage pool. 200kb do not. The node has a total of over 8 terabytes of data stored in TSM. BTW we do not have HSM implemented. The client is 4.2.2.1, the server is 4.1.3.0. We split the storage pools so we would not have to collocate the pool. We did not want to collocate the pool because we want to get multiple tapes running at the same time to speed up the backup. It worked. Werner Kliewer Manitoba Public Insurance
Re: LTO Cleaning Cartridge
The 3581 Ultrium Tape Autoloader Setup, Operator, and Service Guide at http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/pubs/a3204120.pdf states: The IBM LTO Ultrium Cleaning Cartridge is valid for 50 uses. The cartridge's LTO-CM chip tracks the number of times that the cartridge is used. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sascha Askani [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/02 03:15 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:LTO Cleaning Cartridge Hi *SM'er ;) Just a question: How often can an LTO Cleaning Cartridge (IBM) be used. I wonder why this is not mentioned on the product. Thanks in advance Sascha Askani
Re: Magstar Tape capabilities
Check the IBM web site for the current numbers: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/tape/3590/prod_data/g225-6824.html 3590 tape drive performance depends on the model. The latest E1x models write at 14 MB/sec raw, with a maximum sustained rate on SCSI of 34 MB/sec (with compression) and 42 MB/sec of FC with compression. Burst rates are higher, 40 and 100. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gabriel Wiley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/29/02 08:39 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Magstar Tape capabilities An excerpt from the Magstar Redbook. SG24-2594-02 The Magstar tape drive is capable of reading and writing data at a rate of 9 MB/sec. This is three times the rate at which IBM 3490E devices can read and write data. The IBM 3590 High Performance Tape Subsystem can transfer data between the host and the tape subsystem at a rate of 20 MB/sec for hosts attached through small computer systems interface (SCSI), and a rate of 17 MB/sec for hosts attached through Enterprise System Connection (ESCON) channels. Gabriel C. Wiley ADSM/TSM Administrator AIX Support Phone 1-614-308-6709 Pager 1-877-489-2867 Fax 1-614-308-6637 Cell 1-740-972-6441 Siempre Hay Esperanza
Re: un-register licenses?
The nodelock file is a text file containing stanzas of license
information. Make a backup of the file have edit out the unnecessary
stanzas.
Orville L. Lantto
Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com)
121 Cheshire Lane #700
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qualls, Ted W {PBSG} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/21/02 02:25 PM
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:un-register licenses?
Hello!
Does anyone know if there is a way to un-register licenses to TSM without
recycling the server and/or deleting the nodelock file (which requires
registering ALL of the licenses again...I think)? I ran into the known
apar where the 'register lic' command seemingly doesn't register licenses
(tried to verify by 'q license'). So, after running it twice, I decided
to
look at the nodelock file and viola! there was 2X the number of licenses
that I wanted to register. The 'q license' output still says that the
licenses haven't been updated, and we are getting thousands of the 'out of
compliance' messages in our actlog. We are running TSM server code 4.2.2
for AIX.
Thanks in advance.
Ted W. Qualls
PepsiCo Business Solutions Group
Systems Engineer - UNIX Engineering
5080 Spectrum Drive Suite 600W
Addison, TX 75001
office972.376.7809
pager972.297.6973
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please Help
The passwords are stored in files, not the ODM. On AIX they are in /etc/security/adsm, or the location you specify in the options file. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pétur Eyþórsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/02 09:07 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Please Help yes Lindy. Start your dsmc client and issue some command that will revoke the TSM sever then, specify your node name and password. then the password file will bee saved in the ODM database, or what ever the Linux uses for storage information like these. Kvedja/Regards Petur Eythorsson Taeknimadur/Technician IBM Certified Specialist - AIX Tivoli Storage Manager Certified Professional Microsoft Certified System Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nyherji Hf Simi TEL: +354-569-7700 Borgartun 37105 Iceland URL:http://www.nyherji.is -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Crawford, Lindy Sent: 23. maí 2002 12:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please Help Hi TSMers I have loaded a linux client with tsm. When I try to do a backup from the web I get the following error message:- ANS2622S Invalid ID or password submitted. I have done the installation like any other unix client.but I seem to get the above error for this one. Please help...any ideas..!! Lindy Crawford Business Solutions: IT BoE Corporate * +27-31-3642185 +27-31-3642946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WARNING: Any unauthorised use or interception of this email is illegal. If this email is not intended for you, you may not copy, distribute nor disclose the contents to anyone. Save for bona fide company matters, the BoE Group does not accept any responsibility for the opinions expressed in this email. For further details please see: http://www.nbs.co.za/emaildisclaim.htm
Re: Unload db/Loaddb
My db shrank a lot also, but re-grew a fair bit over the next week. I suspect it will reach a steady-state value not much different than I started with. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 Andrew Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/10/02 04:11 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Unload db/Loaddb I missed the first message in this thread, but I have been testing this. This is what I plan to do: - wait for DB backup to complete - enter 'halt quiesce command so the db should be consistent - unloaddb (to disk) - loaddb (from disk) In testing, with out full size DB (47.9GB), it went down to 28.6GB. I am very happy with the results, and am anxious to do it on the prod server. Andy Carlson|\ _,,,---,,_ Senior Technical Specialist ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health Care|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Fri, 10 May 2002, Nici Albrecht wrote: You might want to check out the archives on this, there has been quite a bit of discussion in regards to this issue. Nici At 09:41 AM 5/10/2002 -0400, you wrote: DOes anyone have a standard procedure for unloaddb and loaddb. I have TSM 4.2.1.11 on AIX. Our db is 36GB and is about 79 % full. Any gotchas while doing the unload and loaddb? Any help is appreciated. Rajesh Oak Nici Albrecht MDR Consulting Education, Inc. 210-860-4641
Stratus VOS?
Has anyone had any experience backing up Stratus VOS. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166
Re: Monthly Backups, ...again!
I handle this requirement with a SECOND client on each machine which does an INCREMENTAL backup bound to a management class with the appropriate retention time. This eliminates the resending of static data. This is easily accomplished with a second dsm.opt file and a second server stanza. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Cook, Dwight E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/04/02 11:01 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Monthly Backups, ...again! ARCHIVE ! I tell clients, if they HAVE to have data for a SPECIFIC period of time, archive it into a management class with the required retention period. I try to only give them 1 3, 6, 12 month management classes... anything longer than that and I make them archive to a specially registered node name, I export that data, send the export tapes offsite and purge that specific info out of my TSM data base ;-) Dwight E. Cook Software Application Engineer III Science Applications International Corporation 509 S. Boston Ave. Suit 220 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4606 Office (918) 732-7109 -Original Message- From: Marc Levitan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Monthly Backups, ...again! Has anyone had to defend themselves against the MONTHLY FULL BACKUP kept for a year scenario??? Business wants a monthly full backup to be kept for a year. How have people dealt with this issue? Thanks, Marc Levitan Storage Manager PFPC Global Fund Services - Forwarded by Marc D Levitan/PFPC/WES/PNC on 04/04/2002 11:15 AM - Marc D Levitan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: 04/04/2002 Subject: Monthly Backups, ...again! 08:51 AM A question was brought up while discussing retention policies. Currently we have the following retentions: PolicyPolicyMgmt Copy Versions Versions Retain Retain DomainSet Name Class Group Data DataExtraOnly NameName NameExists Deleted Versions Version - - - - --- COLD ACTIVECOLD STANDARD 215 30 NOVELLACTIVEDIRMC STANDARD301 120 365 NOVELLACTIVESTANDARD STANDARD301 120 365 RECON ACTIVEDIRMC STANDARD363 75 385 RECON ACTIVEMC_RECON STANDARD261 60 365 STANDARD ACTIVEDIRMC STANDARD261 60 365 STANDARD ACTIVESTANDARD STANDARD261 60 365 UNIX ACTIVEMC_UNIX STANDARD301 60 30 I believe that this provides for daily backups for over a month. There was a request to have the following: 1) Daily backups for a week. 2) Weekly backups for a month. 3) Monthly backups for a year. I believe we are providing 1 2. We are providing daily backups for a month. How can I provide monthly backups for a year? I know that I could take monthly archives, but this would exceed our backup windows and would increase our resources ( db, tapes, etc.) Also, I know we could lengthen our retention policies. Also we could create backup sets. (tons of tapes!) How are other people handling this? Thanks, Marc Levitan Storage Manager PFPC Global Fund Services
4.3.1.13 is Out
Server version 4.2.1.13 is on the ftp site ftp://service.software.ibm.com/storage/tivoli-storage-management/patches/server/AIX/4.2.1.13 Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Here is the APAR covering the problem. I do not know when it was created. APAR= IC33056 SER=IN INCORROUT TSM 4.2.1 3494 CATEGORIES SCRATCH PRIVATE INSERT Status: OPENClosed: Apar Information: RCOMP= 5698TSMAXTSM AIX SERVER RREL= R420 FCOMP= PFREL= F TREL= T Return Codes: Applicable Component Level/SU: Error Description: When multiple TSM V4.2.1 Servers are using the same partitioned 3494 Tape Library it is possible for a volume to get checked into the wrong server. As of 4.2.1 and higher the TSM server will not check what category a volume belongs to during a checkin libvol xx search=no command. Therefore it is possible for a volume belonging to one TSM server to get checked into a different TSM server. The Server will change the volume category to reflect the category assigned to that particular status for that specific TSM server. This issue will only occur when a manual checkin is done and the search=no parameter is used. This particular issue was found when a customer setup multiple instances of the TSM Server on the same Unix machine but can also occur when two separate machines are used to access a partitioned 3494 Tape Library. Output from a PVR trace will show TSM recognizing that the volume being checked in has a different category than what has been defined for that server instance, for example;362 TSM changing the tape category to cat=65280 (FF00) (the insert category) then changing the category to the appropriate status for that server, for example; 372 for a scratch tape. .. Local Fix: 1) Make sure that volumes belonging to one TSM server are not being checked into either a separate instance or different TSM Server. 2) Apply the fixtest when released Problem Summary: Temporary Fix: Comments: Problem Conclusion: Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
An update: The server was updated to 4.2.1.11, Atape to 7.0.3.0, atldd to latest. Result: I can still check-in tapes which are checked into another TSM server. TSM ignores the category on the tape and just grabs the tape and changes the category. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
The 3494 docs clearly state that it is the responsibility of the host software to enforce category limits. I thought that the library performed this function and still think it should, but it isn't so. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/02 02:40 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing How exactly did you 'steal' it from server A to B? I always thought it was the responsibility of the library manager component in the 3494 to handle who owns what. Maybe you should be looking at the code level in the 3494 library manager?? You might want to check out the library manager logs for around the time when you 'steal' this volume. Whenever I share a 3494 between multiple TSM servers, I use different volume numbering schemes and the CHECKIN command for each server is defined in a server script with the appropriate VOLRANGE= specified. This is then scheduled to run daily with an admin command schedule. Then I educate the client that they should only checkin volumes using the RUN command for the script I created, or better yet just let the schedule command do it for them. Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Orville L. Lantto Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing No, I tested with a verified scratch volume from Server A (had Server A's scratch category, verified with mtlib) and stole it directly into Server B (resulting in Server B's scratch category on the tape). This should not happen and it is the responsibility of the host software to prevent it. In this case TSM has a flaw. My customer has opened a PMR and we are pursuing it through Tivoli support. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Allen Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/02 10:09 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing It wasn't stolen. I have seen where the 3494 will eject a cart all on its own for various reasons. This action is not sent to TSM. Perhaps the operators saw the tape in the IO door and just pulled it out and put it back in without letting anyone know. Mine have done that several times, the volume is then in FF00 category (free for all).In your case another TSM could have claimed this tape, and a later AUDIT LIBRARY on the rightful owner would leave the 3494 and the TSM's in the state you mention. Orville L. Lantto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 04:43 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing The volume which was stolen was checked in to another TSM server with that server's scratch category code (verified by mtlib). Yes, this is very disturbing! Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Seay, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 03:15 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing Yes and no. Once a tape is ejected from the library, when it is reinserted, it is anybody's game because it does not belong to a specific TSM server. It is in FF00 status. So, if you do a checkin command with a range, search=yes, another TSM Server could get it. This is why I do checkin commands with a specific volume id when I checkin each tape. At Share we have asked for a function to be added in general to setup an include table for each TSM server. This include table would limit what ranges of tapes are allowed to be picked up by that TSM server instance. Now, if the tapes are already in the library and assigned a scratch or private category and the tapes can be stolen, that is a major problem that support needs to know about. I have never tried to see if I can cause one TSM to steal tapes from another TSM server this way. -Original Message- From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one 3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly configured with different
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
No, I tested with a verified scratch volume from Server A (had Server A's scratch category, verified with mtlib) and stole it directly into Server B (resulting in Server B's scratch category on the tape). This should not happen and it is the responsibility of the host software to prevent it. In this case TSM has a flaw. My customer has opened a PMR and we are pursuing it through Tivoli support. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Allen Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/02 10:09 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing It wasn't stolen. I have seen where the 3494 will eject a cart all on its own for various reasons. This action is not sent to TSM. Perhaps the operators saw the tape in the IO door and just pulled it out and put it back in without letting anyone know. Mine have done that several times, the volume is then in FF00 category (free for all).In your case another TSM could have claimed this tape, and a later AUDIT LIBRARY on the rightful owner would leave the 3494 and the TSM's in the state you mention. Orville L. Lantto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 04:43 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing The volume which was stolen was checked in to another TSM server with that server's scratch category code (verified by mtlib). Yes, this is very disturbing! Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Seay, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 03:15 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing Yes and no. Once a tape is ejected from the library, when it is reinserted, it is anybody's game because it does not belong to a specific TSM server. It is in FF00 status. So, if you do a checkin command with a range, search=yes, another TSM Server could get it. This is why I do checkin commands with a specific volume id when I checkin each tape. At Share we have asked for a function to be added in general to setup an include table for each TSM server. This include table would limit what ranges of tapes are allowed to be picked up by that TSM server instance. Now, if the tapes are already in the library and assigned a scratch or private category and the tapes can be stolen, that is a major problem that support needs to know about. I have never tried to see if I can cause one TSM to steal tapes from another TSM server this way. -Original Message- From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one 3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM server to steal a volume that is checked in to another TSM server. This behavior is not exhibited by 3.7.3. Has anyone seem this? Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** PLEASE NOTE *** This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help. **
Re: AIX support for ERASING a tape
tapeutil (part of Atape, the drivers for higher end drives) has an erase function. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Prather, Wanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/02 12:20 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:AIX support for ERASING a tape Our STK 9840 tape drives are attached to an AIX host. The 9840 drives support the SCSI DSE command (Data Security Erase). DSE has to be issued by software. Anybody know of a utility I can run on AIX that will let me issue that command to a tape drive?
3494 Volume Stealing
I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one 3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM server to steal a volume that is checked in to another TSM server. This behavior is not exhibited by 3.7.3. Has anyone seem this? Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
The TSM Servers are defined with categories (Private,Scratch): One: 310,311 Two: 320,321 Three: 330,331 Four: 340,341 The Server option 3494Shared is set to Yes. Library Shared is set to no. Platform is AIX 4.3.3.9 Davidson, Becky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 03:36 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing What are the categories used? I would imagine if it didn't do it in 3.7.3 it won't in 4.2.1 I know what we had in 3.1 transferred fine to 4.1.2 Becky -Original Message- From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one 3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM server to steal a volume that is checked in to another TSM server. This behavior is not exhibited by 3.7.3. Has anyone seem this? Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
The volume which was stolen was checked in to another TSM server with that server's scratch category code (verified by mtlib). Yes, this is very disturbing! Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Seay, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/02 03:15 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing Yes and no. Once a tape is ejected from the library, when it is reinserted, it is anybody's game because it does not belong to a specific TSM server. It is in FF00 status. So, if you do a checkin command with a range, search=yes, another TSM Server could get it. This is why I do checkin commands with a specific volume id when I checkin each tape. At Share we have asked for a function to be added in general to setup an include table for each TSM server. This include table would limit what ranges of tapes are allowed to be picked up by that TSM server instance. Now, if the tapes are already in the library and assigned a scratch or private category and the tapes can be stolen, that is a major problem that support needs to know about. I have never tried to see if I can cause one TSM to steal tapes from another TSM server this way. -Original Message- From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one 3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM server to steal a volume that is checked in to another TSM server. This behavior is not exhibited by 3.7.3. Has anyone seem this? Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mixed SCSI/SAN drives in LAN free, is that possible?
The StorageAgent can only map drives which its operating system knows about! The mapping process maps StorageAgent RMTs to TSM server logical drives. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Norback, Jan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/30/02 11:48 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Mixed SCSI/SAN drives in LAN free, is that possible? Becky, the fact that TSM doesn't care how the drives are attached is the part that scares me. To me it sounds like: -TSM might mount a tape in driveX, which could be SCSI attached -TSM tell the storage agent to use driveX (which it doesn't have a clue about as it is SCSI) and the backup will fail. Is the above assumption correct or does TSM understand that it can't mount a tape in a drive for which there is no drive mapping for this client? SAN DGW isn't an option for this customer, I have used it for other customers. I am used to SAN and SCSI attached drives for LAN free but I haven't tried the mixture... Maybe there is a way to partition the 3494 so it looks like 2 different libraries, one with SCSI and one with SAN or there might not be a problem? /Jan Norback -Original Message- From: Davidson, Becky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mixed SCSI/SAN drives in LAN free, is that possible? Jan Not a problem at all. TSM does not care how they are attached. TSM depends completely on the operating system for the intelligence on the attaching. The 3494 is also intelligent enough to know if someone else is using the drive that it can't. Drive map all the SAN drives??? What you could do which is relatively inexpensive is attach your 3590's to San Data Gateways which attach to the SAN and then they would all be SAN attached. Good luck Becky -Original Message- From: Norback, Jan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mixed SCSI/SAN drives in LAN free, is that possible? Hi, I have been asked by my customer if it is possible to mix SCSI and SAN attached drives on TSM servers that are to perform LAN free backup. I know that I need to drivemapp all the SAN drives but what will TSM do with the SCSI attached drives, is it cleaver enough to make sure that it doesn't mount any tapes for LAN free backups and restores in those drives? Why not upgrade all drives? Money, money... This setup: -TSM server 4.2 on AIX 4.3.3 -3494 libraries -3590E tapes (SCSI and SAN) Regards, Jan Norback Tivoli Certified Consultant: ADSM/TSM IBM Cert. Adv. Technical Expert RS/6000 AIX Atos Origin-IT (MS/DS/OSS Unix) VA-106, PO-box 218, 5600 MD Eindhoven, The Netherlands Groenewoudseweg 1 5621 BA Eindhoven, The Netherlands Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +31 (0)40-2780289 Mobile: +31 (0)6-12994492 Fax : +31 40 2783962
Re: FC/ SCSI
We have seen 60MB/sec into a 3590. It is not easy, because disk is SO SLOW (even stripe sets) when compared to tape with high compression ratios (4 to 1). Our test was DB2 in a Winterhawk II node in an SP using highly optimized Shark disk over fibre. The tape drive was on another Winterhawk II node connected via SP switch. All disk and tape was fibre. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Dearman, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/02 10:51 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: FC/ SCSI I have tested this scenario moving to scsi connected 3590e's and fc connected 3590e's. Using scsi to got about 20Mb/s and fc about 25Mb/s. I'm using hardware compressions. I haven't been able to get the high levels of throughput the IBM claims you can get from moving to fc. Although I haven't tried testing using the move data command yet. My test were coming from my disk pool to tape. -Original Message- From: Felix Muelbaier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC/ SCSI Hi everybody has anyone some experience with this environment. TSM Server Version 4.1.3 OS=AIX 4.3.3 ML8 3494 Library 4 Tapes 3590E 2 Tapes with SCSI 2 Tapes FC IBM says the 3590E a much more faster with the FC adapter. So we want to put one FC Card into our SP and test it. Then the TSM server should run with SCSI and FC tapes. Later will upgrade the next two drives and move the TSM SERVER to a new Hardware. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Felix Mülbaier bebit Informationstechnik GmbH Besselstraße 26 D-68219 Mannheim http://www.bebit.de mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: exclude syntax frustration
One possibility is that you are using an Include/Exclude list with multiple server stanzas. The 'inclexcl' is part of the server stanza. If you just put the line in once at the bottom of the dsm.sys file, it will attach to the last server stanza and not be seen when you use the other server stanzas. Call me if you need to talk. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Glass, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/04/02 05:45 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:exclude syntax frustration TSM seems to ignore our exclude statements, no matter which wildcard syntax we use. For example, we have filesystems called /db1/oracle, /db2/oracle, etc. through /db30/oracle that we want to exclude. We've tried: exclude /db[1-30]/oracle/.../* and exclude /db*/oracle/.../* and exclude /.../oracle/.../* without success: in each case, the backups still try to backup the files under these directories. The backups usually fail to pick up the files, because the files change during the backup, which is why we want to exclude them. Are we misunderstanding how wildcards are supposed to work with exclude statements? Or is this a product bug? Peter Glass Distributed Storage Management (DSM) Wells Fargo Services Company * 612-667-0086 * 866-407-5362 * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI Channel to LTO drive rule of thumb
Don't forget to factor in drive compression. I have seen 4 to 1, which requires 60 MB/sec bandwidth to keep the LTO drive streaming. (If an LTO doesn't stream, figure 1.5 to 6 MB/sec before compression, depending on file size) Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Taylor, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/20/01 09:20 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:SCSI Channel to LTO drive rule of thumb Hi *, Can anyone share with me, a good rule-of-thumb for the maximum number of LTO drives that should be attached to a single Ultra-II SCSI bus? Using the theoretical max transfer rates of 15 MB/s for the drives and 80 MB/s for the SCSI, I shoould be able to put 5 drives on one bus and still have room to spare (theoretically).What is the generally accepted maximum number, in the real world? TIA David Taylor ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **
Re: TSM upgrade
1) You must manually remove the DRM stanza from the file nodelock in the server/bin directory. 2) This command was broken, fixed, broken again, and fixed again. It works in my 4.2.1.8. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric-van.Loocc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TSM upgrade Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIST.EDU 12/10/01 10:21 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hi *SM-ers! I've just upgraded my AIX server from 3.7.4 to 4.2.1.8 and I encounter two problems: 1) For some reason TSM thinks I'm using DRM. I'm not. How do I correct this? 2) a Reg lic file=50mgsyslan.lic updates the license to 50 clients. Running it twice still gives me 50 licenses. Running a Reg lic file=50mgsyslan.lic number=2 still gives me 50 licenses. How do I enter the correct value: 110? Thanks in advance for any reply!!! Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ** This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: Recovering a damaged volume
Try the admin client help. It is always at the latest level, the CDs are the dot-zero. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. 121 Cheshire Lane #700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V: 952-931-1203 F: 952-931-1293 C: 612-770-9166 Zoltan Forray/AC/VCUTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] zforray@VCU.cc: EDU Subject: Recovering a damaged volume Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIST.EDU 12/07/01 03:03 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager OK, guys and gals. Need some assistance, especially since I did RTFM and the book is in error. I have a damaged tape. I went to the TSM manual (even checked the latest CD I received with my 4.2 server) under: Recovering a Lost or Damaged Storage Pool Volume It says to: 1. Determine the copy pool volumes that contain the backup copies of the files that were stored on the volume that was destroyed by entering: restore volume dsm087 preview=volumesonly This command produces a list of offsite volumes that contain the backed up copies of the files that were on tape volume DSM087. Well, every time I issue this command (using my tape number, of course), I get: F ADSM,RESTORE VOLUME 040287 PREVIEW=VOLUMESONLY ANR5965I Console command: RESTORE VOLUME 040287 PREVIEW=VOLUMESONLY ANR2017I Administrator SERVER_CONSOLE issued command: RESTORE VOLUME 040287 PREVIEW=VOLUMESONLY ANR2020E RESTORE VOLUME: Invalid parameter - VOLUMESONLY. What gives ? What is the correct procedure to handle this situation ? Zoltan Forray Virginia Commonwealth University - University Computing Center e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - voice: 804-828-4807
Re: Alternate Pathing Support for AIX 4.3.3
Get Atape 7.0.3.0, it has Alternate Pathing AND Load Balancing. The README has the details. Sorry, I haven't tried it yet Dan Lee Dan.Lee@MUTUALOFTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OMAHA.COM cc: Sent by: ADSM: Subject: Alternate Pathing Support for for AIX 4.3.3 Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 12/06/01 02:23 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager We have TSM 4.2.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3 We have 3590 drives and we are looking at utilizing the alternate pathing support and has anyone done this? How is it configured and has it ever been tested? Dan Lee
