Reducing SCSI timeouts?
Hi everybody, due to faulty tape drives, we have "lost" some of our LTO4 tape volumes, i.e. these volumes are no longer readable by any of our other tape drives. AUDIT VOLUME sometimes stalls at the first file to check and throws errors and gets reduced to a crawl. The only way out for us is currently "DELETE VOLUME DISCARDD=YES", but for obvious reasons, I do a "MOVE DATA" beforehand to rescue the data that any of the drives is able to read. (No copy pools were yet configured) Since we have "a couple of" volumes to check, I'd like to get some insight if it is possible to reduce the SCSI timeout value for the tape drives, since we have to wait ~15 minutes for a single "CANCEL PROCESS" I tried: echo "180" > /sys/class/lin_tape/IBMtapeX/device/timeout But that didn't work out. Any hints? * TSM for Linux/x86_64 - Version 6, Release 2, Level 3.100 * RedHat 5 * lin_taped 1.68.0-1 Thanks in advance! BR, Sascha
Re: delete filespace and LOGMODE NORMAL
Am 22.11.2011 12:27, schrieb Loon, EJ van - SPLXO: > Hi Sascha! > Indeed this sounds strange. I can imagine that the delete filespace pins > the log, which causes the log to grow, but as soon as you cancel the > delete filespace, the pinning should be gone and thus the log > utilization should be back to 0. Yes, that's what I was expecting. > This only proves my point: I have a PMR open for months about log > utilization. Our log continues to grow and triggers a backup several > times a night. We switched to normal mode, just to see what happened, > but this also causes the log to grow. Less (up to 60/70%) but still, the > log grows more than expected. When running in normal mode, the log only > contains uncommitted transaction. Typically large SQL Server client > backups tend to pin the log for a long time, but I also saw that the log > space isn't returned after a pinning transaction is completed. > Development explained that the recovery log uses a sort of a round robin > method and that this is the reason why space isn't returned straight > away. > The fact that a canceled delete filespace doesn't free the log only > proves to me that something is definitely broken/not working correctly > in TSM, but I can't seem convince development... While thinking about your answer I remember a had a strange behaviour (yes, yet another one!): After cancelling the "DELETE FILESPACE" and the log not returning to zero, I tried a "DELETE VOL n DISCARDD=yes" in the STGPool affected; after that the log returned to zero immediately, but unfortunately, I could not reproduce this, so maybe it was jst coincidence, who knows? However, it feels good not being the only one having this type of problem :) BR, Sascha
delete filespace and LOGMODE NORMAL
Hi List, Again, I'd like to tap into your (almost) infinite wisdom regarding TSM ;) I have a 5.5.4.1 / Solaris server running here with a node that has approx. 36 Million objects stored. I already exported this node to a newer (in terms of Hardware and TSM version) server and switched backups. Now I want to get rid of the filespace on the old server. Since deleting 36 million objects will fill up the recovery log pretty fast and often, I thought setting the logmode to "normal" would result in a nice cleanup without triggering the DBBACKUPtrigger every n minutes. So I set the logmode to normal but this didn't keep the log from filling up until 78% where I cancelled the DELETE FILESPACE. Interestingly, the log didn't go back to 0% utilization as I would have expected it. So I did a manual DBBACKUP which zeroed the log. I also opened a PMR with IBM, my contact told me that cancelling the DELETE FILESPACE, backing up the DB and resuming the DELETE FILESPACE was the correct way to do it. So I set the logmode back to ROLLFORWARD and defined the Trigger to 32 incremental backups; this way I didn't have to have an eye on the server while deleting the filespace. So (finally) my question is: Does "Logmode Normal" not prevent a fill-up of the log in this case? Sounds like a bug to me somehow. And why did the log not revert back to zero when I cancelled the DELETE? Sorry for the long mail and thanks in advance! Sascha
Re: TDP for Databases 6.3 -- Documentation
Del, thanks for your reply. The link you provided does not work for me, though... "Bad Gateway The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server." Any hints? BR, Sascha 2011/10/24 Del Hoobler > > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/tsminfo/v6r3/index.jsp > > > > Thanks, > > Del > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 10/24/2011 > 09:47:20 AM: > > >> From: Sascha Askani > >> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu > >> Date: 10/24/2011 09:52 AM > >> Subject: TDP for Databases 6.3 -- Documentation > >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" > >> > >> Hi List ;) > >> > >> Thanks to Passport Advantage, I downloaded the TDP for Databases 6.3 > today, > >> but I cannot seem to find any updated documentation for this product. > Since > >> there have been significant changes in the software (at least in TDP > for > >> MSSQL), it would be great if there was one available ;) > >> > >> Has anybody found a Website or PDF? > >> > >> Thanks in advance! > >> > >> Sascha > >> -- > >> How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A fish. > >> -- How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A fish.
TDP for Databases 6.3 -- Documentation
Hi List ;) Thanks to Passport Advantage, I downloaded the TDP for Databases 6.3 today, but I cannot seem to find any updated documentation for this product. Since there have been significant changes in the software (at least in TDP for MSSQL), it would be great if there was one available ;) Has anybody found a Website or PDF? Thanks in advance! Sascha -- How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A fish.
Re: Weird move nodedata with maxproc?
Am 11.10.2011 13:31, schrieb Richard Sims: > The TSM documentation fails to say just how Maxprocess is honored in the Move > Nodedata context. In other commands, such as Backup Stgpool, it is known > that operation is by "clusters" - a non-grouped node or a collocation group > of nodes. Whereas your task involves a single node, it looks like you are > getting a single thread. > > Richard Sims, at Boston University Richard, thanks for your reply. I also got a mail from a fellow listmember suggesting that the problem could also arise from the node only having one (1) filespace. Best, Sascha
Weird move nodedata with maxproc?
Hi everybody, after a long absence from this mailing list, I'm back (of course) because I have a question about some TSM behavior. We're currently running a TSM 6.2.1.0 on RedHat with (currently) 4 LTO drives, of which DRIVE1 and 2 are LTO3, DRIVE3 and 4 are LTO4. I have a BIGNODE for which I'd like to move the data from an LTO3 pool to a LTO4 pool. So I'll do a move nodedata BIGNODE FROMSTG=TP.POOLA tostg=TP.POOLB maxproc=2 I would now expect that TSM now mounts 2 LTO3 cartridges R/O in the first 2 drives and 2 LTO4 cartrigdes in the LTO4 drives and moves the data for this node with 2 processes. But that does not happen. TSM mounts one LTO3 and one LTO4 cartridge, starts moving the data and waits for Mountpoints although there are two drives doing nothing. Why that? Thanks in advance, Sascha
Re: 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ?
Hi, I only asked this 'dumb' question because I recently had a problem getting an ADIC Scalar24 to work with a TSM 5.2.x-Server, I downgraded the server to 5.1.6 and it worked like a charm. The Device-Compatibility list states 5.1.6 for this library... Greetings, Sascha [...] > >Does this mean that said library is ONLY supported under 5.1.6.5 or is it > >supported FROM 5.1.6.5 ON ? > > The explanatory information above the table specifies that the VRML given > is the minimum level. > > Richard Sims >
Re: 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ?
Hi Daniel, every Subsystem attached to the TSM-Server has its own SCSI-Channel: 3583 (2 LTO1-Drives, Library Controller) 3582 (2 LTO2-Drives, Library Controller) 7337 (2 Drives, Controller) various external HDDs I think (or better: hope) that the TSM-Server has to "pick" the right files from the 3583-Tape, so there is a lot of rewinding and fast-forwarding involved. (move nodedata for a single (but big) filespace). Unfortunaltely, topas is not installed and this is not "my" server, I'm currently at a customer's site, I cannot install anything without begging :(, so I think I have to wait until a significant amount of data resides on the new Library so I can "move data" to see how fast the Lib/Drives really are... Thanks for your support !! Greetings, Sascha > Hi Sascha > > Are the drives connected on the same adapter? In this case, the > "shoe-shine" effect is probably what you're seeing. Your new LTO-2 drive > have variable speed. However, the speed is only adjustable as long as the > speed doesnt fall below 15MB/s. Your LTO-1 drives has a maximum transfer > rate of 15MB/s uncompressed. This could mean, the LTO-1 drives doesnt > deliver data fast enough to the LTO-2 drives. > > If you're using SCSI connected drives, this could impose a real impact on > performance, as the SCSI adapter is arbitrated, and therefore cannot write > to more than one device at a time. > > If you're using AIX, you could use for example topas(if its installed) so > see the performance of your tape drives. As long as no other procesess or > sessions are running, you could look at the top right number(tty > write/read) to determine the speed of the tape drives. > > Best Regards > > Daniel Sparrman > --- > Daniel Sparrman > Exist i Stockholm AB > Propellervdgen 6B > 183 62 TDBY > Vdxel: 08 - 754 98 00 > Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51 > > > > Sascha Askani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2004-07-05 13:46 > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc > > Subject > Re: 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ? > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for your fast reply, I feel somewhat relieved that the lib is > supported, because I face major performance problems with this library at > the moment doing a "move nodedata" 3583(LTO1) -> 3582(LTO2), but I can't > say > if this is a Library-, SCSI- or TSM-Problem or no problem at all (for > example "Shoe-shine" on the 3583... > > Greetings > > Sascha Askani > > > Hi Sascha > > > > It means from, so you shouldnt have any problems using your 3582 under > TSM > > 5.2.2.2. The only tape libraries from IBM that has gone out of support > is > > the 3575-series of libraries. > > > > Notice that you will have to download and install the IBM Atape device > > driver, which you can download from > > ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/devdrvr/AIX. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Daniel Sparrman > > > > > > Sascha Askani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 2004-07-05 13:18 > > Please respond to > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cc > > > > Subject > > 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi List ! > > > > I just wanted to assure that the IBM 3582 (SCSI)-Library is supported > > under > > TSM 5.2.2 (AIX) because "Supported Devices" on IBM-Website tells me: > > > > IBM 3582 Ultrium ScalableAIX HPUXSUN WIN > > The IBM device driver is required. > > 2 Drives 24 Slots 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 > > > > Does this mean that said library is ONLY supported under 5.1.6.5 or is > it > > supported FROM 5.1.6.5 ON ? > > > > Thanks for your support ! > > > > Sascha Askani > > >
Re: 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ?
Hi Daniel, thanks for your fast reply, I feel somewhat relieved that the lib is supported, because I face major performance problems with this library at the moment doing a "move nodedata" 3583(LTO1) -> 3582(LTO2), but I can't say if this is a Library-, SCSI- or TSM-Problem or no problem at all (for example "Shoe-shine" on the 3583... Greetings Sascha Askani > Hi Sascha > > It means from, so you shouldnt have any problems using your 3582 under TSM > 5.2.2.2. The only tape libraries from IBM that has gone out of support is > the 3575-series of libraries. > > Notice that you will have to download and install the IBM Atape device > driver, which you can download from > ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/devdrvr/AIX. > > Best Regards > > Daniel Sparrman > > Sascha Askani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2004-07-05 13:18 > Please respond to > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc > > Subject > 3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ? > > > > > > > Hi List ! > > I just wanted to assure that the IBM 3582 (SCSI)-Library is supported > under > TSM 5.2.2 (AIX) because "Supported Devices" on IBM-Website tells me: > > IBM 3582 Ultrium ScalableAIX HPUXSUN WIN > The IBM device driver is required. > 2 Drives 24 Slots 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 > > Does this mean that said library is ONLY supported under 5.1.6.5 or is it > supported FROM 5.1.6.5 ON ? > > Thanks for your support ! > > Sascha Askani >
3582 supported on TSM 5.2.2 AIX ?
Hi List ! I just wanted to assure that the IBM 3582 (SCSI)-Library is supported under TSM 5.2.2 (AIX) because "Supported Devices" on IBM-Website tells me: IBM 3582 Ultrium ScalableAIX HPUXSUN WIN The IBM device driver is required. 2 Drives 24 Slots 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 5.1.6.5 Does this mean that said library is ONLY supported under 5.1.6.5 or is it supported FROM 5.1.6.5 ON ? Thanks for your support ! Sascha Askani
Re: Delays in connection establishment
> >As far as the patch level is concerned, I used the latest TSM-Binaries > found > > on > >ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/v5r2/AIX/LATEST > >Should I have installed patches ? I could do this next time I'm there... > > Investigate and apply patches if you encounter problems which the patches > say > they fix > (ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/tivoli-storage-management/patches/...). > Patches address specific issues, and have not necessarily been subject to > integrated testing as the "maintenance" levels have. I doubt that they > would > pertain to your delay issue, but the fixes available in patches are well > worth > knowing about as you head toward production with a new TSM level, as they > may > specifically address hardware or access techniques employed at a site. > We like to see patch levels cited in postings both to help assist others > and > to learn how a given level is helping. I installed no specific patch at the mentioned site, since I am always very cautious about installing something where - This is interim fix (patch) level 5.2.2.5 It is intended to provide relief for critical problems where a local circumvention is unavailable. A limited amount of testing has been done to verify the fixes. Consequently, we strongly recommend that you perform additional testing before putting the package into a production environment. - is stated :-) But I keep it in the eye. Thanks anyway, I'll keep you updated :) Greetings, Sascha Askani
Re: Delays in connection establishment
> >I've got a problem concerning the TSM-Server of one of our customers: > > > >I've updated said TSM-Server from AIX 4.3.3 to 5.2 ML3 (64-bit Kernel) > and > >TSM from 4.1.x to 5.2.2 (64bit) (with a step on 5.1.9.0 and CLEANUP > >BACKUPGROUP as well as UPGRADEDB). > >I also upgraded the TSM- and HSM-Client on this server, everything went > >fine. > >BUT: When I attempt a connection to the server, for example via dsmadmc, > the > >TSM waits for approx. 4 or 5 seconds before asking for the password. > (after > >supplying the username). This also seems to happen for every client > session > >as well as for the web-interface, which especially renders the > web-interface > >unusable. After the connection is established, everything works with > normal > >speed... > >Telnet connects from remote machines work like a charm, so, from my point > of > >view, this is a TSM error. > > > >Hints ? > > Four seconds is the conventional DNS timeout value. > Some months ago we discussed such delays, which have been evidenced in a > minority of sites (but not others) under TSM 5.2. This resolves to site > issues > in conjunction with the new DNSLOOKUP option (see the manuals, or > http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts). It may be that 5.2 is > illuminating > some historic DNS issues in your shop. > > You don't specify your TSM patch level (V.R.M.patch_level), but make sure > you > are at a reasonably high level. Hi again ! First of all, thanks for the fastest answer on the northern hemisphere :) As far as the patch level is concerned, I used the latest TSM-Binaries found on ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/v5r2/AIX/LATEST Should I have installed patches ? I could do this next time I'm there... Back to the problem: Unfortunately I have to wait until next week before I can check the DNS issues you mentioned above, but I promise giving updates as soon as I can. If anyone had my problem before, don't hesitate to posting your resolution here ! Thanks in advance ! Sascha Askani
Delays in connection establishment
Hello List :) I've got a problem concerning the TSM-Server of one of our customers: I've updated said TSM-Server from AIX 4.3.3 to 5.2 ML3 (64-bit Kernel) and TSM from 4.1.x to 5.2.2 (64bit) (with a step on 5.1.9.0 and CLEANUP BACKUPGROUP as well as UPGRADEDB). I also upgraded the TSM- and HSM-Client on this server, everything went fine. BUT: When I attempt a connection to the server, for example via dsmadmc, the TSM waits for approx. 4 or 5 seconds before asking for the password. (after supplying the username). This also seems to happen for every client session as well as for the web-interface, which especially renders the web-interface unusable. After the connection is established, everything works with normal speed... Telnet connects from remote machines work like a charm, so, from my point of view, this is a TSM error. Hints ? Thanks in advance Sascha Askani
Re: *Real* admin interface (Was: q vol f=g ??!?)
Oh my, seems like I started a holy war (again) :) Anyway, thanks for the answers, now I see clear ! I started using TSM with Version 4.1.x, so I didn't know there once was a "real" GUI for *SM. Nevertheless, I would REALLY like such a tool cause I don't like the web gui either. Greetings, Sascha [CUT] > Thomas - I share your frustration. How to get results may require another > approach... > Product such as TSM are Big Bucks, Enterprise products. As such, they are > marketed to the level of people in the organization who can authorize such > expenditures - customer company executives. Executives respond to > Enterprise > issues: competitiveness, saving lots of money, nice reports, trimming > staff. > Issues that affect us lowly technicians way down in the company engine > room, > where we shovel coal into the company boilers, don't get any exposure or > attention. To get such attention, those issues have to get up to a higher > management level where those managers, whom IBM will respond to, will feed > the issues to the IBM rep and thus get attention. You have to expend > efforts > to make a written case, understandable to higher-ups, that the current > product situation is impairing administration and costing the company lost > productivity, etc. > > SHARE is certainly an avenue; but as they say, "Money talks." > > Richard Sims, BU >
q vol f=g ??!?
Hi to all the *SMers out there ! I just stumbled over the output of "q vol f=g", actually is was a typo, I got no error Message but an output: - Volume Name: FRE660L1 Storage Pool Name: LTOPOOL Device Class Name: LTOCLASS Estimated Capacity (MB): 130,177.5 Pct Util: 20.1 Volume Status: Full Volume Status (GUI): 2 Access: Read/Write Access (GUI): 0 Pct. Reclaimable Space: 79.9 Scratch Volume?: Yes Scratch Volume? (GUI): 1 In Error State?: No In Error State? (GUI): 0 Number of Writable Sides: 1 Number of Times Mounted: 76 Write Pass Number: 1 Approx. Date Last Written: 08/10/2003 05:50:42 Approx. Date Last Read: 08/22/2003 13:52:56 Date Became Pending: Number of Write Errors: 0 Number of Read Errors: 0 Volume Location: Last Update by (administrator): Last Update Date/Time: 08/05/2003 17:29:55 - Does anyone know what these "(GUI)"-outputs mean ? Or what they are good for ? f=g does also work with "q ses" and produces similar outputs also containing this (GUI)-stuff. I didn't try any other commands yet. Server is TSM 5.1.7.0 running under Windows2000AdvSrv. Greetings, Sascha Askani
Migration requires Backup ... ?
Hi TSMer ! I currently have a little problem understanding how the switch "Migration requires Backup" works for my HSM-Client. I understand that a file can only be migrated to TSM when a Backup version of this file already exists on the server. Am I right that I have 2 backups of the same file consuming twice the space on the tapes if I use this option ? Quite confused, Sascha Askani -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f|r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
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: 16EO Firmware for IBM Ultrium Needed
Hi *SMer ! I can say that 22UD works fine for me on a 3583, I experienced no problems so far :) Greetings Sascha - Original Message - From: "Zlatko Krastev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: 16EO Firmware for IBM Ultrium Needed > What errors do you experience? Is there any pattern? > We are implementing right now TSM with 3583 for a customer and are > upgrading drives from 18N2 (known bad for TSM) to 22UD. Several people on > the list wrote 22U0 works fine but now 22UD is on the site. On the first > tests it run fine but we are at the start point still so cannot say more. > > Zlatko Krastev > IT Consultant > > > > > Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > > Subject:16EO Firmware for IBM Ultrium Needed > > I desperately need firmware level 16EO which cannot be > downloaded from the IBM Website anymore. IBM upgraded one > of my client's drives (4 of them) to level 22UD. I now get > I/O errors after a tape gets mounted. > > Any help will be greatly appretiated. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jacques Butcher > Pre-Sales Technical Consultant > Nat. IT Diploma, MCSE, Tivoli Storage Manager Certified, > NetVault Certified, IPSTor Certified, > IBM Certified Specialist - Enterprise Tape Solutions > Version 2 > Cell: +27 (0)82 3368 368 > > == > Get new ringtones and logos for your cellphone from Ananzi! > [http://www.exactmobile.com/ananzi/] >
Re: Backup to multiple tape simultaneously
- Original Message - From: "William SO Ng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:41 AM Subject: Backup to multiple tape simultaneously > Based on my understanding, TSM does not support simultaneously write to > multiple tape, i.e. I want to write to multiple tapes during backup. If I > want to work around this limitation, can I do the followings : > > Install another instance on the TSM server. Configure the new TSM server > to backup the same set of files. Start the backup at once for this two TSM > servers. So one TSM server will backup to one drive, the other will backup > the next drive. Wouldn't just do setting MAXRESOURCEUTIL on the client to a higher value accomplish the same ? Correct me if I'm wrong. Greetings Sascha
Client Memory usage on NT CLIENT
Hi, we are using a 4.2.1 Client on a Machine running WinNT4 SP6a. The Client is connected to an FC-Array containing approx. 1'000'000 files and 1'800'000 directories (growing). Since the TSM hangs the whole system when trying to backup these files, I took a look on the memoy usage: the software uses 360 MB of RAM after running for 2m30sec and still shows zero inspected objects. Do you have a clue how much RAM I need to successfully backup these files and what values are there to tune the performance ? I used the "memory efficient backup" switch, that changed nothing. The machine is a P3-866, 512MB RAM. According to IBM I need approx. 4GB of RAM to do this Backup ?! Greetings and TIA Sascha
