Re: SV: Failed to backup DB on Linux TSM 6.2
Hello, your db2diag.log shows a return code of 106. This is a permission denied which may have to do with the error log file permissions. See this solution here for details on this : http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21385178 Rejean Larivee NEW IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Wiki Home NEW IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Support Home -How to gather documents for IBM TSM support -Instruction Manuals -Recommended fixes for IBM TSM products ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu wrote on 04/07/2010 11:10:33 AM: [image removed] Re: SV: Failed to backup DB on Linux TSM 6.2 Richard van Denzel to: ADSM-L 04/07/2010 11:12 AM Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager. 2010-04-07-16.00.16.71+120 E405247E455 LEVEL: Info PID : 6282 TID : 47891674556736PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 DB : TSMDB1 APPHDL : 0-347APPID: *LOCAL.tsminst1.100407140403 AUTHID : TSMINST1 EDUID : 39 EDUNAME: db2agent (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqlubSetupJobControl, probe:1508 MESSAGE : Starting an online db backup. 2010-04-07-16.00.29.467092+120 E405703E361 LEVEL: Error PID : 6558 TID : 46920181258944PROC : db2vend (db2med - 50 (TSMDB1)) INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluvint, probe:374 DATA #1 : TSM RC, PD_DB2_TYPE_TSM_RC, 4 bytes TSM RC=0x006A=106 -- see TSM API Reference for meaning. 2010-04-07-16.00.29.503949+120 I406065E749 LEVEL: Error PID : 6282 TID : 47891628419392PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 EDUID : 50 EDUNAME: db2med.39.0 (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluMapVend2MediaRCWithLog, probe:646 DATA #1 : String, 135 bytes Vendor error: rc = 11 returned from function sqluvint. Return_code structure from vendor library /home/tsminst1/sqllib/adsm/libtsm.a: DATA #2 : Hexdump, 48 bytes 0x2B8EC5F95370 : 6A00 3337 3420 3130 3600 j... 374 106. 0x2B8EC5F95380 : 0x2B8EC5F95390 : 2010-04-07-16.00.29.515091+120 I406815E375 LEVEL: Error PID : 6282 TID : 47891628419392PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 EDUID : 50 EDUNAME: db2med.39.0 (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluMapVend2MediaRCWithLog, probe:686 MESSAGE : Error in vendor support code at line: 374 rc: 106 2010-04-07-16.00.29.515261+120 E407191E351 LEVEL: Error PID : 6282 TID : 47891628419392PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 EDUID : 50 EDUNAME: db2med.39.0 (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluMCInitBackupMC, probe:677 MESSAGE : Media controller -- Generic error 2010-04-07-16.00.29.515349+120 E407543E443 LEVEL: Error PID : 6282 TID : 47891628419392PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 EDUID : 50 EDUNAME: db2med.39.0 (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluMCInitBackupMC, probe:677 MESSAGE : SQL2033N An error occurred while accessing TSM during theprocessing of a database utility. TSM reason code: . 2010-04-07-16.00.29.517426+120 E407987E337 LEVEL: Error PID : 6282 TID : 47891628419392PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 EDUID : 50 EDUNAME: db2med.39.0 (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqluMCInitBackupMC, probe:677 DATA #1 : String, 3 bytes 106 2010-04-07-16.00.29.517744+120 E408325E566 LEVEL: Severe PID : 6282 TID : 47891674556736PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE: tsminst1 NODE : 000 DB : TSMDB1 APPHDL : 0-347APPID: *LOCAL.tsminst1.100407140403 AUTHID : TSMINST1 EDUID : 39 EDUNAME: db2agent (TSMDB1) 0 FUNCTION: DB2 UDB, database utilities, sqlubHandleTSMError, probe:1144 DATA #1 : Sqlcode, PD_TYPE_SQLCODE, 4 bytes -2033 DATA #2 : Hexdump, 8 bytes 0x2B8EC61063F8 : 0FF8 3130 3600106. 2010-04-07-16.00.29.517885+120 E408892E974 LEVEL: Severe PID : 6282 TID : 47891674556736PROC : db2sysc 0 INSTANCE:
Re: Missing bytes in the summary table after upgrading to 5.1.1
Hello, yes, this is a defect described by apar IC33455. This apar is fixed in the 4.2.2.5 level of the TSM server which is already available on our ftp site. This apar will also be fixed in the TSM 5.1 level in a patch to be made available shortly also on ftp site. - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Adams, Matt (US - Hermitage)To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] maadams@DELOITTEcc: .COMSubject: Re: Missing bytes in the summary table after upgrading to 5.1.1 Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 06/18/2002 12:30 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Can anyone else confirm this bug?? Thanks, Matt Adams Tivoli Storage Manager Team Hermitage Site Tech Deloitte Touche USA LLP -Original Message- From: Uwe Schreiber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Missing bytes in the summary table after upgrading to 5.1.1 Hi, this is a bug of TSM Server version 4.2.x and AFAIK of version 5.1.x. Based on the note i received from Tivoli Support, the fix (version 4.2.2.5) will be available this week. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Uwe Schreiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 18.06.2002 12:10 Please respond to ADSM-L To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Missing bytes in the summary table after upgrading to 5.1.1 Has anyone seen this? After Upgrading to TSM V5.1.1 the summary table shows no longer any entries for bytes being backed up. The client summary in the dsmsched.log still works fine. And I am able to restore all files. My first guess was that they changed the summary table design - but it's still the same. (This is an example of an V4.2.1 Client, but all the 5.1 Clients do the same.) As you can see the updated happened at the 11th of june. So my daily report makes me feel very sad, because not a single byte has been sent to the server ;-) tsm: TSMSERVselect date(start_time), time(start_time), time(end_time), bytes from summary where entity='AIXSRV01' and activity='BACKUP' Unnamed[1] Unnamed[2] Unnamed[3]BYTES -- -- -- 2002-06-01 23:55:18 00:59:29 14543050544 2002-06-02 23:55:12 00:53:40 19520716503 2002-06-02 23:55:18 00:52:59 18800151653 2002-06-03 23:55:10 00:55:50 20404927333 2002-06-03 23:55:17 00:56:10 19400293099 2002-06-04 23:55:07 01:41:09 39474880518 2002-06-04 23:55:17
Re: 4.2.1.32 problem with systemobject on Citrix
Hello Ken, I believe you are suffering from a known defect identified by IC32636. This apar describes a problem with the client having problems backing system files if the root drive is other than C:. Per your note below, it appears the boot drive is M:. This is why the client works fine if you don't include the systemobject in the domain option. This apar is currently fixed in the 5.1 client so you might want to install the 5.1.0.1 client. Have a good day ! - Rejean Larivee IBM - TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Ken Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OM cc: Sent by: ADSM: Subject: 4.2.1.32 problem with systemobject on Citrix Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 04/30/2002 08:41 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hello all... Backups of a W2K server running Citrix Metaframe XPe are failing, with the following error in the server activity log: 04/30/02 18:17:36 ANR0480W Session 9355 for node CITRIXADTEST (WinNT) terminated - connection with client severed. After 10 minutes, the server reconnects with the client and the backup restarts, only to fail again a few minutes later. The following error occurs in the dsmerror.log, but I often see such failures on non-Citrix servers without the backup stopping: 04/30/2002 18:17:35 ANS4987E Error processing '\\citrixadtest\m $\WINNT\system32 \Perflib_Perfdata_380.dat': the object is in use by another process Following the invaluable information on this forum, I looked at the solution for the sysfiles not on C: problem, which I thought was fixed in 4.2.1.32. To test, I changed DOMAIN from ALL-LOCAL to just M: N: and the backup succeeded. I reset DOMAIN to M: N: SYSTEMOBJECT and the backup failed again. I'm using 4.2.1.32 on a W2K domain controller, backing up the system objects without problems. What's up, am I missing something, or is backing up system objects on Citrix servers still broken? Thanks... Ken
Re: NEED HELP CONTROLLING SCRIPT OUTPUT, FIELD LENGTHS
Hello Matt, remove the -TAB and use -DISPLAY=LIST instead. I believe this is what you are looking for. - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support MC Matt Cooper (2838) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt.Cooper@AMGREcc: ETINGS.COM Subject: Re: NEED HELP CONTROLLING SCRIPT OUTPUT, FIELD LENGTHS Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] EDU 03/27/2002 11:00 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Ike, I am running the following batch job. I added the -TAB and tried -OUTFILE with a redirect in the macro to the data set and that didn't work either. So I tried a few different variation of the above and even went back to adding a / after the ADSMC as the book says. None of it made a difference. It always came back with the output looking the same. Ideally I would want just the needed fields, with fixed length 1 per line. Matt THE JOB. //TSMJOB1 EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01 //STEPLIB DD DSN=SYS1.CEE.SCEERUN, // DISP=SHR //DSCLANG DD DSN=SYS1.TSM.SANSMSG(ANSMENU),DISP=SHR //DSCOPT DD DSN=AGPP.TSM.TSOADMIN.OPTIONS,DISP=SHR //SYSHELP DD DSN=SYS1.TCPIP.SEZAHELP,DISP=SHR //SYSIN DD DUMMY //D1 DD DSN=AGPP.TSM.INACTIVE.NODES,DISP=SHR //SYSTSIN DD * DSMADMC -ID=ADMINJOB -PASSWORD= -OUTFILE=DD:D1 MACRO DD:D2 -TAB //D2 DD * select node_name,lastacc_time,contact from nodes where - cast((current_timestamp-lastacc_time)days as - decimal) = 7 /* //SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUDUMP DD SYSOUT=* THE OUTPUT FILE ADSTAR Distributed Storage Manager Command Line Administrative Interface - Version 3, Release 1, Level 0.7 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation, 1990, 1999, All Rights Reserved. ANS8000I Server command: 'select node_name,lastacc_time,contact from nodes where NODE_NAMELASTACC_TIMECONTACT ---- -- DTE-1710 2002-03-15Dan 09:28:26.00 Harrison/Desktop DTE-1720 2002-03-15SUE 23:27:49.00NEBINGER/DESKTOP -Original Message- From: Hunley, Ike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NEED HELP CONTROLLING SCRIPT OUTPUT, FIELD LENGTHS Matt, What do you do to execute the select command in the z/OS environment? -Original Message- From: MC Matt Cooper (2838) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NEED HELP CONTROLLING SCRIPT OUTPUT, FIELD LENGTHS Hello all, I am trying to write a simple script that shows the nodes that were not accessed by TSM for more than x days and then do an E-mail notification from there. I AM RUNNING TSM 4.1.5 on z/OS 1.1. The select command to get the node name, last access date, and contact name (the e-mail address) seems easy enough. BUT I want the output from this to be in one line, preferably with fixed position or filed lengths. ( I will be using SAS processing to setup the job that will actually do the EMAIL). I have tried the approach documented in the 3rd chapter of the TSM Refernece manual but I can not get the desired results. It always comes back with the output for 1 node with last access and contact name using two lines. Has anyone ever had any success with this in OS390 environment? I could go a long way with an example . Thanks Matt Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
Re: Include.systemobjects, which TSM version ?
Hello Rene, with your level of server client, you should be fine. However, the syntax of the include statement needs to be corrected. You are missing the all keyword, i.e, INCLUDE.SYSTEMOBJECTS ALL class_name That should work. Regards, - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY ,GL-IS/CIS To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rene.Lambelet@NESTLcc: E.COM Subject: Include.systemobjects, which TSM version ? Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] U 03/10/2002 03:22 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hello, please tell me which version supports the new include statement INCLUDE.SYSTEMOBJECTS class_name I tried using TSM server 4.2.1.7 (AIX) and TSM client 4.2.1.20 (W2K), unfortunately every system object remains bound to the DEFAULT management class ! Result: much too many inactive system objects... With my best sentiments, René Lambelet Nestec S.A. / Central Support Center 55, av. Nestlé CH-1800 Vevey (Switzerland) *+41'21'924'35'43 7+41'21'924'28'88 * K4-117 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.
Re: dsmserv initialization fault
Hello, this is a known problem with the 3.7.3.0 server. This is known as apar IC27060. You should at the very least upgrade your server to 3.7.5.0. This is available here : ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/storage/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/v3r7/AIX/LATEST/ That should fix it. Regards, - Rejean Larivee TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Manoel Braz manoelbraz@HO To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TMAIL.COM cc: Sent by: Subject: dsmserv initialization fault ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 01/10/2002 09:52 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hi TSM'ers, I tried to initialize the TSM and it stopped in the following message: Tivoli Storage Manager for AIX-RS/6000Version 3, Release 7, Level 3.0 Licensed Materials - Property of IBM 5697-TSM (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1999. All rights reserved. U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corporation. ANR0900I Processing options file dsmserv.opt. ANR0200I Recovery log assigned capacity is 100 megabytes. ANR0201I Database assigned capacity is 800 megabytes. ANR0306I Recovery log volume mount in progress. Thanks for the help . Regards, Manoel Braz
Re: Strange 3590/3494-volume-behavior..?
Hello,
there is an open apar that addresses your situation.
This is apar PQ55669. The problem is that there may be
orphan entries in a TSM table in the db that prevents
the volume from being acessed again until the server
is restarted. There is no fix for this yet.
Regards,
-
Rejean Larivee
TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support
Tom Tann{s
tom.tannas@US To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT.UIO.NO cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Strange
3590/3494-volume-behavior..?
ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
01/09/2002
03:14 PM
Please respond
to ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager
Yes, you were right.
After restarting the server, the volume was available for use again.
Strange..
Anyway, thanks to all who spent a few seconds in helping me out...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Rainer Wolf wrote:
Hello,
mabe you just need to halt and restart the server.
I had the same phaenomen some weeks ago with volumes, that have been
written directly by clients and at the same time the log file has reached
100 % before the triggered DBbackup has ended ...
( this should not normally happen )
first I tried the same as you ( 3494/3590/tsm4.1.3.0 ) and the restart
did it
... the volumes became accessible as usual.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
Rainer Wolf
__
Rainer Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: 0731-50-22482 Fax: 0731-50-22471
University of Ulmhttp://www.uni-ulm.de/urz
University Computing Center Albert-Einstein-Allee 11
AG Basissysteme 89069 Ulm
Tom Tann{s wrote:
Hello TSM'ers!
I have a problem with a volume in my 3494-library..
Tsm-server is 4.2.1.7, AIX.
I discovered the problem a few days ago, when trying to move data from
the
volume to another stg-pool.
Tsm incists that the volume is inaccessible.
An audit also result in the same:
01/07/2002 16:57:05 ANR2321W Audit volume process terminated for
volume ORA052
- storage media inaccessible.
The volume was dropped by the gripper a week or so ago, but it was
re-entered via the recovery-cell. I have inventoried the frame, audited
the library on the tsm-server. A manual mount,
mtlib -l /dev/lmcp0 -m -f/dev/rmt1 -VORA052 /mtlib -l /dev/lmcp0 -d
-f/dev/rmt1
work fine.
I've even done checkout/checkin libvol.
But now I'm stuck...
ANy suggestions on where to look/what to try, would be appreciated...
Tom
tsm: SUMOq libvol 3494 ORA052
Library Name Volume Name Status OwnerLast UseHome
Element
--- -- -- -
3494 ORA052Private
sumo# mtlib -l /dev/lmcp0 -qV -VORA052
Volume Data:
volume state.00
logical volume...No
volume class.3590 1/2 inch cartridge tape
volume type..HPCT 320m nominal length
volser...ORA052
category.012C
subsystem affinity...03 04 01 02 00 00 00 00
Re: LTO restore performance - seek problem?
Hello, you need the PGA3 microcode which should be available early next week, date subject to change. This is the microcode that should address the performance issue you are seeing. The 12U7.fmr microcode listed below addresses another issue (read error) with the LTO drive but does not address the performance issue yet. The PGA3 microcode, when it comes out, should also include the 12U7 microcode changes. - Rejean Larivee / IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EDU cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: LTO restore performance - seek problem? ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 05/10/01 05:32 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hello all, I applied OCE1 microcode to 2 3583 drives recently, and i think performance is suffering now! Backup seems fine, but tape-to-tape operations is taking forever... perhaps restore is suffering as well, i have not tried any large restores. I'm seeing the same behavior Rejean describes below. A few files will be copied, then a pause for 1-2 minutes, then a few more files. In backing up a primary storage pool to copy storage pool, it only backed up 60 gigs in 9 hours. Does this seem too slow? (it does to me...) I noticed at ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/storage/358x new microcode 12U7.fmr was released on 5/7. Can anyone confirm if this will fix my problem? Also...what is the 12U7.ro file? --Ray =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray DeJean http://www.r-a-y.org Systems Administrator Southeastern Louisiana University IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Thu, 3 May 2001, Rejean Larivee/Quebec/IBM wrote: Hello John, I have worked with one customer getting the same behaviour on restore, even with the 0C1 microcode applied. Small bursts of files being restored at a time. We have captured TSM and Atape traces and found TSM to be waiting for LOCATE commands to complete. We found this to be an LTO microcode problem. A new microcode has been developed and is currently going through final stages of testing. From my last conversation with the hardware engineers involved, our customer should get this new microcode early next week. I will update the list as soon as our customer gets the microcode installed and has a chance to test it. I will also let you know what the official microcode number is once I have it. Regards, - Rejean Larivee / IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support
Re: LTO restore performance - seek problem?
Hello, the LTO microcode that is supposed to fix a performance problem with the LOCATE function as I explained below is known as PGA3. It is still not yet available. Last I heard was that it could be available early next week, date subject to change of course. I will let you know when I have more information. Regards, - Rejean Larivee / IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support - Forwarded by Rejean Larivee/Quebec/IBM on 05/08/01 06:24 PM - Rejean Larivee/Quebec To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /IBM@IBMCA cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: LTO restore performance - seek problem? ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 05/03/01 01:18 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Hello John, I have worked with one customer getting the same behaviour on restore, even with the 0C1 microcode applied. Small bursts of files being restored at a time. We have captured TSM and Atape traces and found TSM to be waiting for LOCATE commands to complete. We found this to be an LTO microcode problem. A new microcode has been developed and is currently going through final stages of testing. From my last conversation with the hardware engineers involved, our customer should get this new microcode early next week. I will update the list as soon as our customer gets the microcode installed and has a chance to test it. I will also let you know what the official microcode number is once I have it. Regards, - Rejean Larivee / IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support John Schneider jdschn@attglo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] bal.net cc: Sent by: Subject: LTO restore performance - seek problem? ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 05/03/01 10:40 AM Please respond to jdschn Greetings, I have seen many posts on adsm.org about LTO, but none that addresses the problem I am seeing. Backup speed seems to be fine, at least as far as I can tell. But when I do a restore, I see a strange behavior. The restore seems to happen in bursts, where the restore pulls back files lickety-split for a awhile, then stops for 15-20 minutes, then continues. I think that the wait is the seek from one spot on the tape to another. We have two tape drives in the IBM 3583 library, and the problem seems to be happening on both of them. We upgraded to the 0CE1 version of the LTO microcode, but it has not improved things that I can tell. We restored 1.5 GB from our RS/6000 TSM server to a NT client, and it took 47762 seconds, or 13 hours. All the data was on one tape, so it is not a colocation problem. How long should it take an LTO drive to seek? I have done these sort of restores on DLT, and it can usually get from any place to any place on a tape within a few minutes. I expected LTO to be at least as good. A 13 hour restore is completely unacceptable. Any input or things to try would be appreciated. By the way, the TSM server is an RS/6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 ML4, with TSM 4.1.2. It is running atape 6.0.4, and atldd 4.1.5.0, which are both the latest, I believe. The NT client was TSM 4.1.2. Both are on the same switch on a 100MB Ethernet network, so I don't think the network is related in any way. TIA, John Schneider *** * John D. Schneider Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Phone: 636-492-0247 * Lowery Systems, Inc. * 1329 Horan Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are * Fenton, MO 63026 mine and mine alone. ***
Re: LTO restore performance - seek problem?
Hello John, I have worked with one customer getting the same behaviour on restore, even with the 0C1 microcode applied. Small bursts of files being restored at a time. We have captured TSM and Atape traces and found TSM to be waiting for LOCATE commands to complete. We found this to be an LTO microcode problem. A new microcode has been developed and is currently going through final stages of testing. From my last conversation with the hardware engineers involved, our customer should get this new microcode early next week. I will update the list as soon as our customer gets the microcode installed and has a chance to test it. I will also let you know what the official microcode number is once I have it. Regards, - Rejean Larivee / IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support John Schneider jdschn@attglo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] bal.net cc: Sent by: Subject: LTO restore performance - seek problem? ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] IST.EDU 05/03/01 10:40 AM Please respond to jdschn Greetings, I have seen many posts on adsm.org about LTO, but none that addresses the problem I am seeing. Backup speed seems to be fine, at least as far as I can tell. But when I do a restore, I see a strange behavior. The restore seems to happen in bursts, where the restore pulls back files lickety-split for a awhile, then stops for 15-20 minutes, then continues. I think that the wait is the seek from one spot on the tape to another. We have two tape drives in the IBM 3583 library, and the problem seems to be happening on both of them. We upgraded to the 0CE1 version of the LTO microcode, but it has not improved things that I can tell. We restored 1.5 GB from our RS/6000 TSM server to a NT client, and it took 47762 seconds, or 13 hours. All the data was on one tape, so it is not a colocation problem. How long should it take an LTO drive to seek? I have done these sort of restores on DLT, and it can usually get from any place to any place on a tape within a few minutes. I expected LTO to be at least as good. A 13 hour restore is completely unacceptable. Any input or things to try would be appreciated. By the way, the TSM server is an RS/6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 ML4, with TSM 4.1.2. It is running atape 6.0.4, and atldd 4.1.5.0, which are both the latest, I believe. The NT client was TSM 4.1.2. Both are on the same switch on a 100MB Ethernet network, so I don't think the network is related in any way. TIA, John Schneider *** * John D. Schneider Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Phone: 636-492-0247 * Lowery Systems, Inc. * 1329 Horan Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are * Fenton, MO 63026 mine and mine alone. ***
Re: emulex LP8000 HBA
Hello, your adapter needs to be configured as "fcs0" device for it to work with the TSM smit menus. Since your adapter is defined as an lpfc0 device, this tells me that you have loaded the "emulex" device driver. The Emulex device driver corresponds to the following filesets : devices.pci.lpfc.diag devices.pci.lpfc.rte Those filesets are provided by Emulex. In order to have the device recognized as a fcs0 device instead of lpfc0 device, you need to remove those two filesets and rerun cfgmgr. You of course will need to have the proper IBM AIX fibre channel filesets installed. Those filesets are dicussed in the TSM server readme. Have a great day ! - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support Joel Fuhrman [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 12/13/2000 01:58:24 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: emulex LP8000 HBA It took a process of comparing the different cards on the Emulex web page. Since its a short card with only 2 jumpers, it was an lp8000. After running cfgmgr, an lsdev -C shows lpfc0 as Emulex LP8000 Fibre Channel Adapter. On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Suad Musovich wrote: How can you tell whether it's a LP8000 (short of ripping off the lid)? Cheers, Suad -- On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 12:25:17AM -0800, Joel Fuhrman wrote: I'm trying to configure a new H80 AIX 4.3.3 host with TSM 4.1.1 using an Emulex LP8000 host bus adapter connected to an STK 9840 fibre channel disk drive. Per the installation instructions in the Quick Start Guidem I loaded the fibre channel pre-req's for the fcrte fileset; but they seem to be for the Emulex LP7000 card. Config manager, cfgmgr, wants the level 8 drivers which I don't believe IBM released. So I loaded the drivers from Emulex. Cfgmgr will configure the devices; but "smit tsm_devices" fails to list or find any fiber channel devices. If you have a working config using the Emulex LP8000 would you mind sharing how you set it up?
Re: Partition a 3494
Hello, library sharing for SCSI libraries and library sharing for 3494 libraries are two separate things in TSM. Library Sharing for SCSI libraries requires that you define the library as follow : define library mylib libtype=scsi shared=yes ...(library manager) define library mylib libtype=shared primarylibmanager=... (library client) Library Sharing for 3494 libraries does not use the library manager/client configuration as described above. It needs the "3494SHARED YES" server option instead. You still need to use separate categories for the different servers as I stated before otherwise you may end up with two servers having the same private/scratch volume in the library inventory, for example. What 3494 library sharing brings is the ability to define all drives to all the servers sharing the 3494. The TSM server will detect if a drive is available and will retry based on the new retry options that were added in 4.1 (DRIVEACQUIRERETRY and MPTIMEOUT options). Hope this helps clarify the issue. Have a great day ! - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM/ADSM Level 2 Support "Joshua S. Bassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/16/2000 10:28:26 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 The TSM 4.1 announcement indicates that the TSM 4.1 library sharing feature now supports 3494 libraries. So thankfully we no longer need to "logically" partition the library. -- Joshua S. Bassi IBM Certified- AIX Support, HACMP, SAN Enterprise Disk(Shark) Tape Solutions Tivoli Certified Consultant - ADSM/TSM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rejean Larivee/Quebec/IBM Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 Hello, indeed, with TSM 4.1, you can share a 3494 library with the 3494SHARED server option. However, you still need to "logically" partition the 3494 by making sure to use separate categories for scratch and private volume between the different servers. Have a great day ! - Rejean Larivee IBM ADSM/TSM Level 2 Support "Joshua S. Bassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/16/2000 10:43:44 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 With TSM 4.1 you CAN share a 3494 without partitioning it. -- Joshua S. Bassi IBM Certified- AIX Support, HACMP, SAN Enterprise Disk(Shark) Tape Solutions Tivoli Certified Consultant - ADSM/TSM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 Doesn't TSM 4.1 allow the sharing of a 3494 between multiple TSM servers without partitioning it? At 08:40 PM 11/15/00 -0800, T.Y. Wu wrote: I need to add a 2nd RS/6000 TSM server to an existing 3494. The book says that IBM ATL must be partitioned for multiple TSM servers to use the same library. Exactly how is a 3494 partitioned? What needs to be done on the 3494 side? I know I need to use different set of category numbers for the 2nd server on the TSM side. Thanks, T.Y. --- W. Curtis Preston, Principal Consultant at Collective Technologies Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Best way to contact me) Work : 408 452 (Leave a message.) Pager: 800 946 4646, pin#1436065(If urgent.) Tap into the Collective Intellect (TM): http://www.colltech.com Backup Restore resources:http://www.backupcentral.com
Re: Partition a 3494
Hello, indeed, with TSM 4.1, you can share a 3494 library with the 3494SHARED server option. However, you still need to "logically" partition the 3494 by making sure to use separate categories for scratch and private volume between the different servers. Have a great day ! - Rejean Larivee IBM ADSM/TSM Level 2 Support "Joshua S. Bassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/16/2000 10:43:44 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 With TSM 4.1 you CAN share a 3494 without partitioning it. -- Joshua S. Bassi IBM Certified- AIX Support, HACMP, SAN Enterprise Disk(Shark) Tape Solutions Tivoli Certified Consultant - ADSM/TSM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Partition a 3494 Doesn't TSM 4.1 allow the sharing of a 3494 between multiple TSM servers without partitioning it? At 08:40 PM 11/15/00 -0800, T.Y. Wu wrote: I need to add a 2nd RS/6000 TSM server to an existing 3494. The book says that IBM ATL must be partitioned for multiple TSM servers to use the same library. Exactly how is a 3494 partitioned? What needs to be done on the 3494 side? I know I need to use different set of category numbers for the 2nd server on the TSM side. Thanks, T.Y. --- W. Curtis Preston, Principal Consultant at Collective Technologies Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Best way to contact me) Work : 408 452 (Leave a message.) Pager: 800 946 4646, pin#1436065(If urgent.) Tap into the Collective Intellect (TM): http://www.colltech.com Backup Restore resources:http://www.backupcentral.com
