Re: AIX rmt devices in a library sharing environment - how do you handle them
We rename our rmt devices, using a script called tsmchrmt, which uses part of the wwn and lun_id to rename the rmt device. That way the same drive has the same name on all of the AIX systems that have access to it. >#!/bin/sh > >if [ $# != 1 ] >then > /bin/echo "must specify 1 rmt device name as an argument." > exit 4 >fi >d=$1 > >WWN=`/usr/sbin/lsattr -El $d -a ww_name|/bin/cut -f2 -d" "|/bin/cut -c15-` >LUN=`/usr/sbin/lsattr -El $d -a lun_id|/bin/cut -f2 -d" "|/bin/cut -c3` >root=`/bin/echo $d|/bin/cut -c1-3` >new_name=$root.$WWN.$LUN.0 >let "j=0" >while [[ -e /dev/$new_name ]] >do >let "j=j+1" >new_name=$root.$WWN.$LUN.$j >done >/usr/sbin/chdev -l $d -a new_name=$new_name At 02:31 PM 7/8/2016, Rhodes, Richard L. wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >I'm wondering how others handle lining up tape paths of multiple TSM servers >in a library sharing environment. > >We have a TSM library sharing environment across our TSM instances for sharing >our two 3584 libraries. One 3584 at each datacenter with a dedicate TSm >instance for the library manager. > >Currently I have a script that crawls through all TSM instances, gets the wwn >of each rmt device (lsattr -El rmtX), lines up all the wwn/rmt# for a drive >and creates TSM path commands. Kind of brute force, but has worked very well >over the years. I can create path cmds for everything in about 15m. But, >this means that a particular drive can have many different rmtX devices across >our TSM servers. > >A while ago I learned that you can rename a rmtX device (rendev -l rmtX -n >rmtY). I've been thinking about a new system where I rename the rmtX devices >on each AIX lpar to a common name. > >For example: If a particular lpar has rmt1 which is our "a" 3584, and the >drive is frame 1 drive 1, then I could call it rmta11. There is atape >involved with multi paths, so there would also be -pri and -alt versions of >the name somehow. So this particular drive would have the same AIX device >name across all AIX lpars. > >So, I'm curious . . . What do you do to line up rmt devices? >Do you rename rmt devices to a common name, or, line up the many different rmt >devices? >If you rename rmt devices, what issues/problems have you worked through? > > >Thanks > >Rick > > > > >- > >The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal >and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this >message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering >it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received >this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or >copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original >message. -- Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757 Assistant Director for Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / InfrastructureEm: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
AIX rmt devices in a library sharing environment - how do you handle them
Hi Everyone, I'm wondering how others handle lining up tape paths of multiple TSM servers in a library sharing environment. We have a TSM library sharing environment across our TSM instances for sharing our two 3584 libraries. One 3584 at each datacenter with a dedicate TSm instance for the library manager. Currently I have a script that crawls through all TSM instances, gets the wwn of each rmt device (lsattr -El rmtX), lines up all the wwn/rmt# for a drive and creates TSM path commands. Kind of brute force, but has worked very well over the years. I can create path cmds for everything in about 15m. But, this means that a particular drive can have many different rmtX devices across our TSM servers. A while ago I learned that you can rename a rmtX device (rendev -l rmtX -n rmtY). I've been thinking about a new system where I rename the rmtX devices on each AIX lpar to a common name. For example: If a particular lpar has rmt1 which is our "a" 3584, and the drive is frame 1 drive 1, then I could call it rmta11. There is atape involved with multi paths, so there would also be -pri and -alt versions of the name somehow. So this particular drive would have the same AIX device name across all AIX lpars. So, I'm curious . . . What do you do to line up rmt devices? Do you rename rmt devices to a common name, or, line up the many different rmt devices? If you rename rmt devices, what issues/problems have you worked through? Thanks Rick - The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
TSM support does not consider this a bug, and directed me to open a RFE. I've got the RFE submitted and it's percolating through the review process now. Here's the info if folks want to vote on it: Original PMR: 50613,550,000 RFE: 64537 URL: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=64537 On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:02:10AM +1100, Grant Street wrote: Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie me) can vote for it? Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us. Thanks Grant On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote: Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote: I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
Could someone please remove me from this list. I've been on it for quite some time and don't remember how that happen. Most of the stuff you guys talk about is way way outside my wheelhouse. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Pax et bonum, Abp William Higginbotham, OSB Patriarch The Church of Ireland in North America Phone: 910 653 3388 and Pastor St. Jude's Free Catholic Church http://stjudefreecatholic.us/ You can do no great things, only small things with great love. St Theresa of Calcutta On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Skylar Thompson skyl...@u.washington.edu wrote: I got bogged down last week with other stuff, but I have PMR 50613,550,000 open now. I'll keep folks posted on developments on it. On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:02:10AM +1100, Grant Street wrote: Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie me) can vote for it? Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us. Thanks Grant On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote: Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote: I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
I got bogged down last week with other stuff, but I have PMR 50613,550,000 open now. I'll keep folks posted on developments on it. On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:02:10AM +1100, Grant Street wrote: Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie me) can vote for it? Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us. Thanks Grant On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote: Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote: I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote: I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. HTH Grant -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie me) can vote for it? Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us. Thanks Grant On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote: Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote: I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on Windows). What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and storage pools to use going forward. Wanda Prather TSM Consultant ICF International Cybersecurity Division -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. HTH Grant -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. HTH Grant -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:28:59PM +1100, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. I had considered that too, except our LTO5 drives should sort before the LTO6 drives since they include LTO5 and LTO6 (respectively) in the names: LIBRARY-LTO5-0 LIBRARY-LTO5-1 ... LIBRARY-LTO6-0 LIBRARY-LTO6-1 Thanks, though! -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, but it did not work. Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP drives. The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L5,L5 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors. You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L archives for UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5. Thanks again to Remco Post and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu ==I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.= On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. HTH Grant
Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: Hi folks, We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available. What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers. I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the least-capable drives first. Any thoughts? -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine might be a stab in the dark . try numbering the drives such that the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. That way when tsm scans for an available drive it will always try the LTO5's first. HTH Grant
Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
Hello I was wondering if anyone had an idea on how to disable the library sharing messages from the actlog? here's some stats I have dsmserv redirect stdout and stderr to a log file. This log file is currently 158811 lines for less than 8 hours. If I remove the ANR0409I and ANR0408I lines I get 1645 lines. So these library sharing messages account for 99% of the actlog's content. I continually get the following ANR0408I Session 54932 started for server (Linux/x86_64) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. ANR0409I Session 54932 ended for server (Linux/x86_64). This makes it nigh on impossible to use q actlog without capturing 1000 library sharing messages, and the log file does not contain the timestamps. It doesn't look like I can use ! as a not etc. Any other help full information? Grant
Re: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
Use the disable events command to specify the messages that you no longer want to see. There are many options to remove particular event messages from the activity log, computer event log, etc. Reference the help section from the CLI for all options. ~Rick Adamson Jax, Fl. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Street Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:31 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Disabling the library sharing actlog messages Hello I was wondering if anyone had an idea on how to disable the library sharing messages from the actlog? here's some stats I have dsmserv redirect stdout and stderr to a log file. This log file is currently 158811 lines for less than 8 hours. If I remove the ANR0409I and ANR0408I lines I get 1645 lines. So these library sharing messages account for 99% of the actlog's content. I continually get the following ANR0408I Session 54932 started for server (Linux/x86_64) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. ANR0409I Session 54932 ended for server (Linux/x86_64). This makes it nigh on impossible to use q actlog without capturing 1000 library sharing messages, and the log file does not contain the timestamps. It doesn't look like I can use ! as a not etc. Any other help full information? Grant
Re: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
Please remove me from the email distribution list. Thanks The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Re: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
Grant I've not tried it, but I imagine you can disable specific events from appearing in either the console or the activity log using, for example DISABLE EVENTS ACTLOG ANR0408 DISABLE EVENTS ACTLOG ANR0409 I personally wouldn't choose to do this, because for troubleshooting purposes I rely on my actlog to be an authoritative source of everything the server has done. I mainly use it to prevent messages I don't care about (such as ANR0944E) from going to other receivers such as the Windows application event log. But in terms of the problem you stated, I would imagine you can tweak it to meet you requirements. Regards Neil Schofield Technical Leader Yorkshire Water Spotted a leak? If you spot a leak please report it immediately. Call us on 0800 57 3553 or go to http://www.yorkshirewater.com/leaks Get a free water saving pack Don't forget to request your free water and energy saving pack, it could save you money on your utility bills and help you conserve water. http://www.yorkshirewater.com/savewater The information in this e-mail is confidential and may also be legally privileged. The contents are intended for recipient only and are subject to the legal notice available at http://www.keldagroup.com/email.htm Yorkshire Water Services Limited Registered Office Western House, Halifax Road, Bradford, BD6 2SZ Registered in England and Wales No 2366682
Re: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
On 06/20/2012 08:38 AM, Neil Schofield wrote:
I personally wouldn't choose to do this, because for troubleshooting
purposes I rely on my actlog to be an authoritative source of everything
the server has done. I mainly use it to prevent messages I don't care
about (such as ANR0944E) from going to other receivers such as the Windows
application event log.
What he said, with enlargement:
I'm a firm fan of keeping the activity logs essentially forever. I
would reframe your problem description, Grant, as a query-interface
issue, not a data storage issue. The q actlog interface is Not
Intended For That, and I think they're right not to try to get a whole
analytic engine in there at the command line.
Here's what I do, in a nutshell: Every day, for every server instance,
at about 00:05, I drop yesterday's actlog into a compressed file.
They compress really well, more than 10x just with gzip. Well enough
that I haven't bothered going back and making them do bz2.
Then, I have a script which walks through the actlogs.
1) it applies an extensive list of I don't really care much about
this sort of line, with reasons. These get dumped.
my $ignore =
{
'ANE4952I' = Client session postmortem,
'ANE4953I' = Client session postmortem,
[...]
'ANR0402I' = Server session start,
[...]
'ANR0811I' = Expiration Processing,
}
2) it identifies lines which I want to forward to those responsible
for a TSM artifact, with regexps for how to extract the artifact in
question. These get filed, and at the end of the log run, they get
emailed to the responsible parties.
my $collect =
{
'' = Node: (\\S+)\\\)\\s,
[...]
'ANR0425W' = node (\\S+)\\s,
'ANR0479W' = server (\\S+)\\s,
[...]
'ANR2716E' = client (\\S+)\\s,
}
3) All the rest of the messages get sent to Central TSM admins (aka
me and some folks who don't read it. ;) )
So: In Grant's case, I'd put those messages... (looks..) Aha. In
fact, I _have_ those messages in my ignore list. :) but they're still
in my actlog repository, so when I e.g. want to analyze frequency of
mount actions per-server since inception, to support an assertion
about my infrastructure, I can still do it.
Here. Yesterday I was working on an occupation graph dating to the
point I adopted my current architecture.
http://open-systems.ufl.edu/static/asr-pub/servers-5000.pdf
Incredibly useful to keep the data. I can do the same thing for
mount behavior.
- Allen S. Rout
AW: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages
Hallo Grant, you could do this kind of filtering also with the TSM Power Administrator. In your case you could filter the q act output so that ANR0408I and ANR0409I messages are not displayed. If you want more information, pls contact me offline this list. Thanks and rgds mikel. michael.mal...@mm-it.at -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] Im Auftrag von Grant Street Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 10:31 An: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Betreff: Disabling the library sharing actlog messages Hello I was wondering if anyone had an idea on how to disable the library sharing messages from the actlog? here's some stats I have dsmserv redirect stdout and stderr to a log file. This log file is currently 158811 lines for less than 8 hours. If I remove the ANR0409I and ANR0408I lines I get 1645 lines. So these library sharing messages account for 99% of the actlog's content. I continually get the following ANR0408I Session 54932 started for server (Linux/x86_64) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. ANR0409I Session 54932 ended for server (Linux/x86_64). This makes it nigh on impossible to use q actlog without capturing 1000 library sharing messages, and the log file does not contain the timestamps. It doesn't look like I can use ! as a not etc. Any other help full information? Grant
Library sharing client - FC required?
Remco and Stefan, Thank you for your interesting replies. Best wishes, Keithy
Library sharing client - FC required?
In SCSI library sharing, does the Library Client need fiber connections to the automated tape library? I understand paths to the drives are defined on the Library Manager and the Library Client, but does file movement to and from tape drives pass over fiber between the Library Client and the Library, or between the Library Manager and the Library? With many thanks, Keith Arbogast
Re: Library sharing client - FC required?
On 25 jul. 2011, at 19:31, Keith Arbogast wrote: In SCSI library sharing, does the Library Client need fiber connections to the automated tape library? I understand paths to the drives are defined on the Library Manager and the Library Client, but does file movement to and from tape drives pass over fiber between the Library Client and the Library, or between the Library Manager and the Library? - paths are defined on the library manager for both the manager (as usual) and the client - Occam's razor applies - imagine a library manager managing 80+ drives for 10+ other servers, and all data moving via this one LM, not a scalable solution - HBA's with default firmware can only act as initiators, not as targets - thus, the library manager can't receive any data from the other servers With many thanks, Keith Arbogast -- Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards, Remco Post r.p...@plcs.nl +31 6 248 21 622
Re: Library sharing client - FC required?
Keith, yes, the TSM library client needs a FC connection to the drives yes that you want it to use. - imagine a library manager managing 80+ drives for 10+ other servers, and all data moving via this one LM, not a scalable solution - Occam's razor applies For as far as I know the data doesn't move via the LM, it just mounts the drives on request, the LM is not in the data path. - HBA's with default firmware can only act as initiators, not as targets This is true, but what does it have to do with a TSM LM? :-) - thus, the library manager can't receive any data from the other servers I feel like I am missing something here, what's going on!? :-) The problem is with things such as SA's, they can't run on a library client for as far as I know. Regards, Stefan
Re: Antwort: RE: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing
Hello, After you install TSM server you will get a Management Console where you can install and configure your n+ instances. c$\Documents and Settings\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\Tivoli Storage Manager\Management Console.lnk No, you can still share the lib. and drives. Same procedure for IBM3584, SL500, STK9710 etc. I assume you use LTO drives, see v.6201 install_README.txt install_exclusive.exe: install_exclusive.exe should be used by applications (such as Tivoli Storage Manager) requiring the driver to issue automatic reserves on open and also preventing multiple open handles from a host to a drive to exist at the same time. Note: This option replaces the previous default installation of install.exe install_nonexclusive.exe: install_nonexclusive.exe should be used by applications (such as Microsoft Data Protection Manager or Microsoft Removable Storage Manager) permitting multiple open handles from a host to a drive to exist at the same time. install_exclusive.exe has nothing to do with TSM library sharing. Thanks Henrik -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of TSM Sent: den 29 juli 2009 06:40 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Antwort: RE: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing Hello Henrik, thank you for the responce. I can't try it now. I am thinking, whether I can share the same tape-drives on the same windows system. I found the sentences ( http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/tivihelp/v1r1/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.itsmfdt.doc/b_install_guide_windows24.htm ) : A typical Tivoli Storage Manager installation involves one server instance in the Tivoli Storage Manager server machine. You might want to install a second instance. You might also want to run more than one server on a large machine if you have multiple tape libraries or a disk-only configuration. For the IBM Tape drive I use install_exclusive.exe. Does it mean No drive sharing ? You use a STK Library. Is this different from IBM libraries for library- and drive-sharing with windows ? With best regards Andreas. Henrik Vahlstedt s...@statoilhydro.com 27.07.2009 09:31 An: TSM t...@profi-ag.de Kopie: Thema: RE: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing Hi, Yes it is possible. Use the TSM concole wizard to create a second instance and follow the steps below. Modify them to fit your settings. //Henrik To share a STK9710 library between two TSM instances on the same TSM server: Manager: UPDate LIBRary STK9710 SHAREd=Yes Set CROSSDefine ON Set SERVERPAssword password Set SERVERLladdress 1500 upd dr stk9710 MTxx onl=n Client: Set SERVERPAssword password DEFine SERver Manager SERVERPAssword=password HLAddress=127.0.0.1 LLAddress=1500 CROSSDEFine=Yes PING SERVER X PING SERVER Y DEFine LIBRary STK9710 LIBType=SHAREd PRIMarylibmanager=Manager UPDate DEVclass DLT7000 LIBRary=STK9710 Manager: CHECKIn LIBVolume STK9710 SEARCH=Bulk STATus=PRIvate CHECKLabel=Barcode (OWNer=Client) DEFine PATH Client MTxx SRCType=SERVer DESTType=DRive LIBRary=STK9710 DEVIce=MTxx (Paths to all drives). Client: Audit libr stk9710 checklabel=barcode Update drives and test tape mounts: upd dr stk9710 MTxx onl=y Test backup/restores and tape mounts on both TSM systems. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of TSM Sent: den 24 juli 2009 18:47 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing hello, is it possible, to run two tsm server instances on the same windows system using the same library? Are there any special hints for configure the tsm server and the library sharing? tsm server version 5.5.3.0 with best regards andreas --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
Antwort: RE: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing
Hello Henrik, thank you for the responce. I can't try it now. I am thinking, whether I can share the same tape-drives on the same windows system. I found the sentences ( http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/tivihelp/v1r1/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.itsmfdt.doc/b_install_guide_windows24.htm ) : A typical Tivoli Storage Manager installation involves one server instance in the Tivoli Storage Manager server machine. You might want to install a second instance. You might also want to run more than one server on a large machine if you have multiple tape libraries or a disk-only configuration. For the IBM Tape drive I use install_exclusive.exe. Does it mean No drive sharing ? You use a STK Library. Is this different from IBM libraries for library- and drive-sharing with windows ? With best regards Andreas. Henrik Vahlstedt s...@statoilhydro.com 27.07.2009 09:31 An: TSM t...@profi-ag.de Kopie: Thema: RE: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing Hi, Yes it is possible. Use the TSM concole wizard to create a second instance and follow the steps below. Modify them to fit your settings. //Henrik To share a STK9710 library between two TSM instances on the same TSM server: Manager: UPDate LIBRary STK9710 SHAREd=Yes Set CROSSDefine ON Set SERVERPAssword password Set SERVERLladdress 1500 upd dr stk9710 MTxx onl=n Client: Set SERVERPAssword password DEFine SERver Manager SERVERPAssword=password HLAddress=127.0.0.1 LLAddress=1500 CROSSDEFine=Yes PING SERVER X PING SERVER Y DEFine LIBRary STK9710 LIBType=SHAREd PRIMarylibmanager=Manager UPDate DEVclass DLT7000 LIBRary=STK9710 Manager: CHECKIn LIBVolume STK9710 SEARCH=Bulk STATus=PRIvate CHECKLabel=Barcode (OWNer=Client) DEFine PATH Client MTxx SRCType=SERVer DESTType=DRive LIBRary=STK9710 DEVIce=MTxx (Paths to all drives). Client: Audit libr stk9710 checklabel=barcode Update drives and test tape mounts: upd dr stk9710 MTxx onl=y Test backup/restores and tape mounts on both TSM systems. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of TSM Sent: den 24 juli 2009 18:47 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing hello, is it possible, to run two tsm server instances on the same windows system using the same library? Are there any special hints for configure the tsm server and the library sharing? tsm server version 5.5.3.0 with best regards andreas --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
two tsm server instances on the same windows server with library-sharing
hello, is it possible, to run two tsm server instances on the same windows system using the same library? Are there any special hints for configure the tsm server and the library sharing? tsm server version 5.5.3.0 with best regards andreas
Looking for experiences in 3494 library sharing under Zlinux
Any major things I should look out for? Library server will be tsm 5.4.4 under Suse sles9 guest under vm 5.3 Clients tsm 5.4.4 and 5.4.2 same os and same vm lpar. I hope to start testing tomorrow, but wanted to check in here first. I only have our production 3494 to play with; so being extra careful. Thank you for any observations. Gary Lee Senior System Programmer Ball State University phone: 765-285-1310
Filetype library sharing
Hi, I have 2 ITSM server (5.4) running on one Windows box. One library client, one library manager. They share (among other STA's) a LTO library, which is working fine. Now, I'm trying to get a filetype library working in the same manner as the LTO library. What I did was: - defined the file type library on the library manager. - defined a path from the library client to this library on the library manager. - defined library on the library client Now its time to define the devclass on the library client pointing to this filetype library, but which one to select??? Devclass file has no option to point to the shared library, generictape didn't do it either. Removablefile gives nice errors 5/27/2009 3:02:53 PM ANR8935E A compatible device class for shared library FILELIB1 on server was not found. Thanx, Karel ÿþD i t b e r i c h t i s v e r t r o u w e l i j k e n k a n g e h e i m e i n f o r m a t i e b e v a t t e n e n k e l b e s t e m d v o o r d e g e a d r e s s e e r d e . I n d i e n d i t b e r i c h t n i e t v o o r u i s b e s t e m d , v e r z o e k e n w i j u d i t o n m i d d e l l i j k a a n o n s t e m e l d e n e n h e t b e r i c h t t e v e r n i e t i g e n . A a n g e z i e n d e i n t e g r i t e i t v a n h e t b e r i c h t n i e t v e i l i g g e s t e l d i s m i d d e l s v e r z e n d i n g v i a i n t e r n e t , k a n A t o s O r i g i n n i e t a a n s p r a k e l i j k w o r d e n g e h o u d e n v o o r d e i n h o u d d a a r v a n . H o e w e l w i j o n s i n s p a n n e n e e n v i r u s v r i j n e t w e r k t e h a n t e r e n , g e v e n w i j g e e n e n k e l e g a r a n t i e d a t d i t b e r i c h t v i r u s v r i j i s , n o c h a a n v a a r d e n w i j e n i g e a a n s p r a k e l i j k h e i d v o o r d e m o g e l i j k e a a n w e z i g h e i d v a n e e n v i r u s i n d i t b e r i c h t . O p a l o n z e r e c h t s v e r h o u d i n g e n , a a n b i e d i n g e n e n o v e r e e n k o m s t e n w a a r o n d e r A t o s O r i g i n g o e d e r e n e n / o f d i e n s t e n l e v e r t z i j n m e t u i t s l u i t i n g v a n a l l e a n d e r e v o o r w a a r d e n d e L e v e r i n g s v o o r w a a r d e n v a n A t o s O r i g i n v a n t o e p a s s i n g . D e z e w o r d e n u o p a a n v r a a g d i r e c t k o s t e l o o s t o e g e z o n d e n . T h i s e - m a i l a n d t h e d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e a d d r e s s e e ; i t m a y a l s o b e p r i v i l e g e d . I f y o u r e c e i v e t h i s e - m a i l i n e r r o r , p l e a s e n o t i f y t h e s e n d e r i m m e d i a t e l y a n d d e s t r o y i t . A s i t s i n t e g r i t y c a n n o t b e s e c u r e d o n t h e I n t e r n e t , t h e A t o s O r i g i n g r o u p l i a b i l i t y c a n n o t b e t r i g g e r e d f o r t h e m e s s a g e c o n t e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e s e n d e r e n d e a v o u r s t o m a i n t a i n a c o m p u t e r v i r u s - f r e e n e t w o r k , t h e s e n d e r d o e s n o t w a r r a n t t h a t t h i s t r a n s m i s s i o n i s v i r u s - f r e e a n d w i l l n o t b e l i a b l e f o r a n y d a m a g e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n y v i r u s t r a n s m i t t e d . O n a l l o f f e r s a n d a g r e e m e n t s u n d e r w h i c h A t o s O r i g i n s u p p l i e s g o o d s a n d / o r s e r v i c e s o f w h a t e v e r n a t u r e , t h e T e r m s o f D e l i v e r y f r o m A t o s O r i g i n e x c l u s i v e l y a p p l y . T h e T e r m s o f D e l i v e r y s h a l l b e p r o m p t l y s u b m i t t e d t o y o u o n y o u r r e q u e s t . A t o s O r i g i n N e d e r l a n d B . V . / U t r e c h t K v K U t r e c h t 3 0 1 3 2 7 6 2
Library sharing over FCIP
Hi! Does anybody have any experience with library sharing over FCIP. I am involved in a setup where the copypool is located far awyay from the primary backup. I am not happy with using Virtual Volumes so I want to explore the possibility of mounting the tape drives directly over the SAN. Bandwidth will be OK and the IP-line will be stable, but I expect there will be some latency. Best regards Hans Chr. Riksheim htmlbodybr /br /br /font face=Arial size=1hrThis email originates from Steria AS, Biskop Gunnerus' gate 14a, N-0051 OSLO, http://www.steria.no. This email and any attachments may contain confidential/intellectual property/copyright information and is only for the use of the addressee(s). You are prohibited from copying, forwarding, disclosing, saving or otherwise using it in any way if you are not the addressee(s) or responsible for delivery. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender and cancel it immediately. Steria may monitor the content of emails within its network to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. Any email is susceptible to alteration and its integrity cannot be assured. Steria shall not be liable if the message is altered, modified, falsified, or even edited./font/body/html
Re: Library sharing over FCIP
Yes this can be done. If you suspect that latency will be a challenge just make sure you have the Tape Acceleration Feature enabled on your SAN switch that's doing FCIP, the challenges here at least with Cisco's FCIP you can use compression or tape acceleration but not both. It works pretty good depending on your FCIP link size, the amount of data etc -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hans Christian Riksheim Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:37 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Library sharing over FCIP Hi! Does anybody have any experience with library sharing over FCIP. I am involved in a setup where the copypool is located far awyay from the primary backup. I am not happy with using Virtual Volumes so I want to explore the possibility of mounting the tape drives directly over the SAN. Bandwidth will be OK and the IP-line will be stable, but I expect there will be some latency. Best regards Hans Chr. Riksheim htmlbodybr /br /br /font face=Arial size=1hrThis email originates from Steria AS, Biskop Gunnerus' gate 14a, N-0051 OSLO, http://www.steria.no. This email and any attachments may contain confidential/intellectual property/copyright information and is only for the use of the addressee(s). You are prohibited from copying, forwarding, disclosing, saving or otherwise using it in any way if you are not the addressee(s) or responsible for delivery. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender and cancel it immediately. Steria may monitor the content of emails within its network to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. Any email is susceptible to alteration and its integrity cannot be assured. Steria shall not be liable if the message is altered, modified, falsified, or even edited./font/body/html This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
REMOVE=UNTILEEFULL on 3584 with library sharing
In other environments, I've used MOVE DRM REMOVE=untileefull with scsi/fibre attached 3584 and it works fine. In this environment, we have a library manager and 4 library clients. The 3584 has 20x 3592-E05 drives and 64 virtual I/O slots. MOVE DRM REMOVE=BULK works fine from the library clients and the library manager. When trying REMOVE=UNTILEEFULL from the library clients: A) A request posts on the library manager stating that all I/O slots are full or inaccessible and it can't move the one specific volser out. B) This request blocks all other robot activity from the LM and all of the LCs. C) CANCEL PROC of any MOVE DRM, CHECKIN or LABEL process will not cancel. D) CANCEL REQ on one request will simply pop up for the next tape. If MOVE DRM was cancelled, then that LC's process will free up and the next LC will cause a request to post on the LM. The Virtual I/O slots look and operate like normal I/O slots to TSM, and REMOVE=BULK works for CHECKOUT and MOVE DRM on all of the LCs and the LM. At this point, I'm not sure if the issue is that library sharing can't handle UNTILEEFULL, or if the virtual I/O slots are a problem. I was hoping to hear if anyone else was doing something similar, or had similar problems. TSM is 5.3.4.2 on AIX all/around. Atape is 10.6 AIX is 5.3.0.0-TL06
How do tapes get assigned to proper owneship in TSM Library Sharing?
Greetings, We have a configuration with 7 TSM servers all sharing the same library using TSM Library sharing, where one instance is the Master, and the others all view the library as owned by the Master, and appeal to it for tape mounts, etc. This configuration has worked fine, but there is one problem with it that I wish I could easily solve. I could write a script to solve it, but before I do I thought I would appeal to the list to see if there is something in the native functionality to solve it. Every now and then, like this last week when we added tape drives to the library, a circumstance forces us to completely delete the paths, the drives, then the library, and recreate them in order to pick up the changed/new element numbers in the library. We have macros in place to make this relatively painless to execute, so that is not the problem. After we redefine the library, the library inventory is cleared and we have to check all the private and scratch tapes back in. Still no big deal. But when we do that, all the tapes ownership disappears. Before the upgrade, a 'query libvolume' shows: SUN1018 100120L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,145 LTO SUN1018 100121L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,146 LTO SUN1018 100122L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,147 LTO SUN1018 100123L4 Private MDCTSM02Data 1,148 LTO SUN1018 100124L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,149 LTO SUN1018 100125L4 Private MDCTSM01Data 1,150 LTO SUN1018 100126L4 Private MDCTSM01Data 1,151 LTO SUN1018 100127L4 Private MDCTSM04Data 1,152 LTO SUN1018 100128L4 Private MDCTSM05Data 1,153 LTO But afterward it shows: SUN1018 100120L4 Private 1,145 LTO SUN1018 100121L4 Private 1,146LTO SUN1018 100122L4 Private 1,147LTO SUN1018 100123L4 Private 1,148LTO SUN1018 100124L4 Private 1,149LTO SUN1018 100125L4 Private 1,150LTO SUN1018 100126L4 Private 1,151LTO SUN1018 100127L4 Private 1,152LTO SUN1018 100128L4 Private 1,153LTO This does not seem to cause any misbehavior on TSM's part. It apparently knows which tapes are owned by which instance, and one by one over the course of time the TSM instances will ask to have these tapes mounted, and when they do, the ownership gets assigned back. But why doesn't the ownership get assigned correctly by TSM when they get checked back in? If we try to check them in search=yes as scratch tapes, TSM will tell us that they can't be assigned a status of scratch, so he knows they are owned by a TSM instance. So why can't TSM assign the ownership at checkin if it knows who the owner is? Is there some way to force this behavior? I am thinking about writing a script which will go through the library volumes one at a time and compare it to the volumes and drm lists from each instance, and issue a 'update libv ... owner=' to put the ownership back the way it belongs. It wouldn't be much to write, but I am still surprised it needs to be done at all. We are running TSM 5.3.5.1 on AIX, in case it matters. Best Regards, John D. Schneider Sr. System Administrator - Storage Sisters of Mercy Health System 3637 South Geyer Road St. Louis, MO. 63127 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: 314-364-3150, Cell: 314-486-2359
Re: How do tapes get assigned to proper owneship in TSM Library Sharing?
Another way to sync up the owner list is to go to each library client and run an audit libr libname checkl=barcode. That forces each library client to go to the library manager and in turn the library manager will update the owner list. Thanks, Sean English Dist. Backup Tech Support Wachovia Bank, N.A. Office: 704.590.7146 Cell: 704.281.0318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] TSM Sharepoint Teamsite Wachovia Confidential: The information transmitted is intended only for use by the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of it, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons and/or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please inform the sender and/or addressee immediately and delete the material. Schneider, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 09/24/2007 11:02 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject [ADSM-L] How do tapes get assigned to proper owneship in TSMLibrary Sharing? Greetings, We have a configuration with 7 TSM servers all sharing the same library using TSM Library sharing, where one instance is the Master, and the others all view the library as owned by the Master, and appeal to it for tape mounts, etc. This configuration has worked fine, but there is one problem with it that I wish I could easily solve. I could write a script to solve it, but before I do I thought I would appeal to the list to see if there is something in the native functionality to solve it. Every now and then, like this last week when we added tape drives to the library, a circumstance forces us to completely delete the paths, the drives, then the library, and recreate them in order to pick up the changed/new element numbers in the library. We have macros in place to make this relatively painless to execute, so that is not the problem. After we redefine the library, the library inventory is cleared and we have to check all the private and scratch tapes back in. Still no big deal. But when we do that, all the tapes ownership disappears. Before the upgrade, a 'query libvolume' shows: SUN1018 100120L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,145 LTO SUN1018 100121L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,146 LTO SUN1018 100122L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,147 LTO SUN1018 100123L4 Private MDCTSM02Data 1,148 LTO SUN1018 100124L4 Private MDCTSM03Data 1,149 LTO SUN1018 100125L4 Private MDCTSM01Data 1,150 LTO SUN1018 100126L4 Private MDCTSM01Data 1,151 LTO SUN1018 100127L4 Private MDCTSM04Data 1,152 LTO SUN1018 100128L4 Private MDCTSM05Data 1,153 LTO But afterward it shows: SUN1018 100120L4 Private 1,145 LTO SUN1018 100121L4 Private 1,146LTO SUN1018 100122L4 Private 1,147LTO SUN1018 100123L4 Private 1,148LTO SUN1018 100124L4 Private 1,149LTO SUN1018 100125L4 Private 1,150LTO SUN1018 100126L4 Private 1,151LTO SUN1018 100127L4 Private 1,152LTO SUN1018 100128L4 Private 1,153LTO This does not seem to cause any misbehavior on TSM's part. It apparently knows which tapes are owned by which instance, and one by one over the course of time the TSM instances will ask to have these tapes mounted, and when they do, the ownership gets assigned back. But why doesn't the ownership get assigned correctly by TSM when they get checked back in? If we try to check them in search=yes as scratch tapes, TSM will tell us that they can't be assigned a status of scratch, so he knows they are owned by a TSM instance. So why can't TSM assign the ownership at checkin if it knows who the owner is? Is there some way to force this behavior? I am thinking about writing a script which will go through the library volumes one at a time and compare it to the volumes and drm lists from each instance, and issue a 'update libv ... owner=' to put the ownership back the way it belongs. It wouldn't be much to write, but I am still surprised it needs to be done at all. We are running TSM 5.3.5.1 on AIX, in case it matters. Best Regards, John D. Schneider Sr. System Administrator - Storage Sisters of Mercy Health System 3637 South Geyer Road St. Louis, MO. 63127 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: 314-364-3150, Cell: 314-486-2359 image/gif
Library sharing
Hello experts, I have a 3494 library attached to a TSM server 5.2.2 (AIX 5.3). I am in the process of setting up a new TSM server running TSM 5.4 and attach it to the same library. I will need to copy the old 200GB database to the new server and eventually unplug the old server. I am going to list some of my concerns here. 1- my library is set up as not shared (I checked q opt) Will I be able to share the library with the new tsm server...(all my drives, 14 of them, and my current TSM server are connected to a fiber switch and zoned). 2- if I can share the library, my plan is to backup the TSM DB, volhist, dsmsrv.dsk, devconfig, dsmserv.opt, shutdown the old TSM server and copy those to the new TSM server. Is that doable? 3- Will the new TSM server (5.4) be able to back up my old TSM clients( 4.2 and 5.1) AIX 4.3 , HPUX, windows NT 4.0...(don't ask why but we can't upgrade those OSes and clients) 4- Can I copy my old licence files to the new server and re-license? If that is not possible, how do I get license files? (oracle, exchange, SQL) 5- What is the largest supported DB size for TSM 5.4? Your help is greatly appreciated. TIA, Best regards, Daad - Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
Re: Library sharing
On Jun 11, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Daad Ali wrote: ... 5- What is the largest supported DB size for TSM 5.4? Admin Guide says: The maximum size of the recovery log is 13GB, and the maximum size of the database is 530GB.
Re: 3584 library sharing followup
Thanks to both of you for your information! _ Kathleen Hallahan Freddie Mac William Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 09/16/2006 01:02 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: 3584 library sharing followup The problem is that after cloning the existing database to the 2nd instance, they BOTH have the same volume information. When you do the AUDIT LIBR on the library client, the library manager updates the ownership of all the tapes known by that client. So if you were to then run an AUDIT LIBR from the 2nd (cloned) instance, ALL the same volumes would now be owned by the 2nd instance. The library manager doesn't seem to enforce that if an instance already owns the volume(s) that another instance just can't take ownership away. The TYPE=REMOTE entries in the library manager volhist table prevent you from being able to check in a tape that has data on it as a scratch volume. But if there's no TYPE=REMOTE entry for that tape, you can check it in as scratch and another instance can actually overwrite the data on that tape. So you need to be careful about keeping track what tapes are still good for each instance. Another thing I noticed, if client1 owns a tape and client2 calls for it to be mounted...the library manager will mount the tape and change the ownership over to client2. Maybe this is WAD, but I don't think that the library manager should allow the ownership change of a tape volume just because a client asks. I don't think that the library manager should even allow a non-owner instance to mount the tape. Ownership changes should be a manual process to get the desired effect. Interesting that if on the library manager a tape is checked in and owned by client1, you cannot issue the UPD LIBV command to change ownership to client2. You must first check out the volume and then check it back in so the library manager is listed as the owner and private. Then you can issue the UPD LIBV command to make client2 the owner. So my current DB has both daily and monthly data, separate domains and storage pools. I'll be cloning the database over to another instance. Then: On DAILY instance (current): - update all the monthly volumes to ACC=UNAVAIL - Lock all the monthly nodes. - VARY OFF all the monthly disk volumes. On the MONTHLY instance (cloned): - Update all daily volumes to ACC=UNAVAIL - Lock all daily nodes. - VARY OFF the daily disk volumes. On the library manager: - Change ownership of all checked in MONTHLY tapes. - Delete the TYPE-REMOTE entries for all the MONTHLY tapes. At this point any monthly tapes not checked in to the library are not known to the library manaager. So you could actually check these tapes in as scratch. This is where you need to be careful. Also you don't want to do an AUDIT LIBR on either of the clients at this point. As it will change the ownership of all the tapes to that client. Then you'll have to start all over again. On the DAILY instance: - DELETE all the monthly data/filespace/nodes/domains. On the MONTHLY instance: - Delete all the daily data/filespace/nodes/domains. One thing I did notice is that if client1 owns the tape and client2 deletes that tape the library manager will report an error and not change the status of the tape. So when you delete a DAILY tape from the MONTHLY instance, ownership and status won't change. Once all the volumes/data has been deleted from the appropriate instances, you can issue the AUDIT LIBR to update the library manager for correct ownership. This was a lot of trial and error and testing. I haven't split the production database. That's planned for next month. Bill -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TSM_User Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:13 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 3584 library sharing followup On one of the instance you will delete the library and then create a new shared library. When you run the audit library command on a library client it updates the library manager updates it's volhist to show that the volumes in its library are remote and not belong to the other instnace. We had a server that we wanted to retire but it had been the library manager. We simply made one of the other library clients the manager. Due to the fact that this new instance had no information about any of the library clients we found we only had to run the audit library command on all the library clients after they were pointed to the new library manager. Seems like this same approch would work for you. Kathleen M Hallahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week, Bill Boyer posted a message (which I no longer have) about splitting a database and library sharing. and ownership of tapes. I saw one response suggesting exporting and importing the data, but nothing else. Did anyone ever come up
Re: 3584 library sharing followup
On one of the instance you will delete the library and then create a new shared library. When you run the audit library command on a library client it updates the library manager updates it's volhist to show that the volumes in its library are remote and not belong to the other instnace. We had a server that we wanted to retire but it had been the library manager. We simply made one of the other library clients the manager. Due to the fact that this new instance had no information about any of the library clients we found we only had to run the audit library command on all the library clients after they were pointed to the new library manager. Seems like this same approch would work for you. Kathleen M Hallahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week, Bill Boyer posted a message (which I no longer have) about splitting a database and library sharing. and ownership of tapes. I saw one response suggesting exporting and importing the data, but nothing else. Did anyone ever come up with other ideas on this? I'm actually getting ready to do something similar, splitting a very large TSM database by loading a duplicate instance onto the same AIX server and then selectively deleting from each. I'm presuming that using the TSM library sharing function will create the same ownership issue for us as Bill is/was experiencing. There is far too much data for export/import to be practical. In our case, all of the tapes for one (legacy) instance will reside outside of the library unless needed for a specific restore, and no new data will be added. Can I leave the library definitions intact in the second instance, and just make sure the two systems never have the same drive online at the same time? I would then check tapes into the legacy instance of TSM when restores were required. As this is old data, it would only happen on an occasional basis. We're on TSM 5.2.3.1 on AIX 5.2, using a 3584 with LTO2 drives. Thanks! _ Kathleen Hallahan Freddie Mac - Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
Re: 3584 library sharing followup
The problem is that after cloning the existing database to the 2nd instance, they BOTH have the same volume information. When you do the AUDIT LIBR on the library client, the library manager updates the ownership of all the tapes known by that client. So if you were to then run an AUDIT LIBR from the 2nd (cloned) instance, ALL the same volumes would now be owned by the 2nd instance. The library manager doesn't seem to enforce that if an instance already owns the volume(s) that another instance just can't take ownership away. The TYPE=REMOTE entries in the library manager volhist table prevent you from being able to check in a tape that has data on it as a scratch volume. But if there's no TYPE=REMOTE entry for that tape, you can check it in as scratch and another instance can actually overwrite the data on that tape. So you need to be careful about keeping track what tapes are still good for each instance. Another thing I noticed, if client1 owns a tape and client2 calls for it to be mounted...the library manager will mount the tape and change the ownership over to client2. Maybe this is WAD, but I don't think that the library manager should allow the ownership change of a tape volume just because a client asks. I don't think that the library manager should even allow a non-owner instance to mount the tape. Ownership changes should be a manual process to get the desired effect. Interesting that if on the library manager a tape is checked in and owned by client1, you cannot issue the UPD LIBV command to change ownership to client2. You must first check out the volume and then check it back in so the library manager is listed as the owner and private. Then you can issue the UPD LIBV command to make client2 the owner. So my current DB has both daily and monthly data, separate domains and storage pools. I'll be cloning the database over to another instance. Then: On DAILY instance (current): - update all the monthly volumes to ACC=UNAVAIL - Lock all the monthly nodes. - VARY OFF all the monthly disk volumes. On the MONTHLY instance (cloned): - Update all daily volumes to ACC=UNAVAIL - Lock all daily nodes. - VARY OFF the daily disk volumes. On the library manager: - Change ownership of all checked in MONTHLY tapes. - Delete the TYPE-REMOTE entries for all the MONTHLY tapes. At this point any monthly tapes not checked in to the library are not known to the library manaager. So you could actually check these tapes in as scratch. This is where you need to be careful. Also you don't want to do an AUDIT LIBR on either of the clients at this point. As it will change the ownership of all the tapes to that client. Then you'll have to start all over again. On the DAILY instance: - DELETE all the monthly data/filespace/nodes/domains. On the MONTHLY instance: - Delete all the daily data/filespace/nodes/domains. One thing I did notice is that if client1 owns the tape and client2 deletes that tape the library manager will report an error and not change the status of the tape. So when you delete a DAILY tape from the MONTHLY instance, ownership and status won't change. Once all the volumes/data has been deleted from the appropriate instances, you can issue the AUDIT LIBR to update the library manager for correct ownership. This was a lot of trial and error and testing. I haven't split the production database. That's planned for next month. Bill -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TSM_User Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:13 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 3584 library sharing followup On one of the instance you will delete the library and then create a new shared library. When you run the audit library command on a library client it updates the library manager updates it's volhist to show that the volumes in its library are remote and not belong to the other instnace. We had a server that we wanted to retire but it had been the library manager. We simply made one of the other library clients the manager. Due to the fact that this new instance had no information about any of the library clients we found we only had to run the audit library command on all the library clients after they were pointed to the new library manager. Seems like this same approch would work for you. Kathleen M Hallahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week, Bill Boyer posted a message (which I no longer have) about splitting a database and library sharing. and ownership of tapes. I saw one response suggesting exporting and importing the data, but nothing else. Did anyone ever come up with other ideas on this? I'm actually getting ready to do something similar, splitting a very large TSM database by loading a duplicate instance onto the same AIX server and then selectively deleting from each. I'm presuming that using the TSM library sharing function will create the same ownership issue for us as Bill is/was experiencing
3584 library sharing followup
Last week, Bill Boyer posted a message (which I no longer have) about splitting a database and library sharing. and ownership of tapes. I saw one response suggesting exporting and importing the data, but nothing else. Did anyone ever come up with other ideas on this? I'm actually getting ready to do something similar, splitting a very large TSM database by loading a duplicate instance onto the same AIX server and then selectively deleting from each. I'm presuming that using the TSM library sharing function will create the same ownership issue for us as Bill is/was experiencing. There is far too much data for export/import to be practical. In our case, all of the tapes for one (legacy) instance will reside outside of the library unless needed for a specific restore, and no new data will be added. Can I leave the library definitions intact in the second instance, and just make sure the two systems never have the same drive online at the same time? I would then check tapes into the legacy instance of TSM when restores were required. As this is old data, it would only happen on an occasional basis. We're on TSM 5.2.3.1 on AIX 5.2, using a 3584 with LTO2 drives. Thanks! _ Kathleen Hallahan Freddie Mac
Re: Splitting TSM database and library sharing
Hi William, You can try EXPORT commands. With them, you can selectively export objects from one instance to other. On 9/6/06, William Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client using library sharing of a 3584 with LTO3 drives. Right now their one main instance is so large it needs to be split. The client does daily incremental as well as monthly backups. The daily backups are domain STANDARD using stgpools 3584POOL and 3584CPPOOL. The monthly backups use domain LONGTERM and stgpools LONGTERM_3584 and LONGTERM_VAULT. I would like to create another instance and initially restore the database to it. Then rename it and establish server-2-server for the library sharing. Then from the main instance LOCK all the monthly nodenames and start deleting them. And from the new monthly instance, lock all the daily nodes and start deleting them. (DELETE FILESPACE). How can I change ownership of the volumes?? Right now the main instance TSM owns the volumes with the library manager. I want to change the ownership of all the LONGTERM* tapes to the TSM2 instance. If I run an AUDIT LIBR from TSM2, then ALL volumes that are currently in the library are changed to TSM2, including the daily tapes. If I try to do an UPDATE LIBV on the library manager to change the ownership, I get error ANR8969E. It also appears that all the volumes belonging to a library client are in the library manager volume history file as TYPE=REMOTE. Maybe there's a better (or easier??) way of splitting the database and use library sharing for the resources...any help will be appreciated. TSM Server 5.3.2.1 on AIX. Bill Boyer Select * from USERS where CLUE0 0 rows returned -- Helder Garcia
Splitting TSM database and library sharing
I have a client using library sharing of a 3584 with LTO3 drives. Right now their one main instance is so large it needs to be split. The client does daily incremental as well as monthly backups. The daily backups are domain STANDARD using stgpools 3584POOL and 3584CPPOOL. The monthly backups use domain LONGTERM and stgpools LONGTERM_3584 and LONGTERM_VAULT. I would like to create another instance and initially restore the database to it. Then rename it and establish server-2-server for the library sharing. Then from the main instance LOCK all the monthly nodenames and start deleting them. And from the new monthly instance, lock all the daily nodes and start deleting them. (DELETE FILESPACE). How can I change ownership of the volumes?? Right now the main instance TSM owns the volumes with the library manager. I want to change the ownership of all the LONGTERM* tapes to the TSM2 instance. If I run an AUDIT LIBR from TSM2, then ALL volumes that are currently in the library are changed to TSM2, including the daily tapes. If I try to do an UPDATE LIBV on the library manager to change the ownership, I get error ANR8969E. It also appears that all the volumes belonging to a library client are in the library manager volume history file as TYPE=REMOTE. Maybe there's a better (or easier??) way of splitting the database and use library sharing for the resources...any help will be appreciated. TSM Server 5.3.2.1 on AIX. Bill Boyer Select * from USERS where CLUE0 0 rows returned
3494 Library Sharing
I am trying to share a 3494 tape library between two TSM servers. The TSM Library Manager server has storage agents defined to it but I would like to define storage agents on the TSM Library Client server. With no drives defined on the TSM Library Client server is it possible to define storage agents and how would you do that? Ellen Deschenes UITS Server Support 486-8341
Re: 3494 Library Sharing
Just setup the Storage Agents as you normally would. The only exception is that you create the paths on the TSM Library Manager. Then the TSM Library Client will pass the mount requests to the Library Manager without any special configuration. Gerald Michalak Certified TSM V5.3 Admin. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU wrote on 05/11/2006 08:59:22 AM: I am trying to share a 3494 tape library between two TSM servers. The TSM Library Manager server has storage agents defined to it but I would like to define storage agents on the TSM Library Client server. With no drives defined on the TSM Library Client server is it possible to define storage agents and how would you do that? Ellen Deschenes UITS Server Support 486-8341
Library sharing
Hi Everybody, I'll be upgrading from TSM 5.1.6 to 5.2.6.4 this weekend. I will also up updating the tivoli.tsm.devices.aix5.rte fileset ( it was at aix43 because I upgraded from AIX 4.3.3 to 5.2 ML6 a few weeks ago and didn't update it ). From what I've read, updating this fileset will mess up all my tape definitions. If this is the case, do I have to pay any special attention to the library sharing between two instances I have on this server ? Rich
Re: Library sharing
Hi Richard! Other than having to redefine the tape paths on each instance, as long as the databases are up to date for each instance, there shouldn't be any problems. I'm sure that you already know to make backups of all the recovery files just prior to doing the upgrade just in case. : ) Jim Neal -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Mochnaczewski Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:09 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Library sharing Hi Everybody, I'll be upgrading from TSM 5.1.6 to 5.2.6.4 this weekend. I will also up updating the tivoli.tsm.devices.aix5.rte fileset ( it was at aix43 because I upgraded from AIX 4.3.3 to 5.2 ML6 a few weeks ago and didn't update it ). From what I've read, updating this fileset will mess up all my tape definitions. If this is the case, do I have to pay any special attention to the library sharing between two instances I have on this server ? Rich
Library sharing
Ok I am attempting to install a second TSM server with a shared 3584 library and I need some help. Heres the config. Server A aix 5.1 tsm server 5.3.1.6 fiber connection to library Server B same as above. I have set up server to server communications and was able to set up the library on the second server. However I cannot define drives. I am following the redbook walkthrough on this and they say to do a def drive libname drivename. When I do this though I get tsm: NA_TSM_CRITdef drive 3584a drive01 ANR8403E DEFINE DRIVE: Operation not allowed for SHARED libraries. ANS8001I Return code 3.. Is there something I am missing. I know server to server com is working... If I try to def path of course it says drive 01 is not defined Thanks in advance, Andrew This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you.
Re: Library sharing
Hi, Aren't U missing the device parameter in define drive command ? -DEFine DRive--library_name--drive_name--- .-ONLine--=--Yes-. --DEVIce--=--+-device_name-+--++--- '-FILE' '-ONLine--=--+-Yes-+-' '-No--' .-ELEMent--=--AUTODetect-- --+-+-- '-ELEMent--=--+-AUTODetect-+-- '-address' --- this says DEVICE parameter is required.. rgds, Aleem On 11/24/05, Meadows, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I am attempting to install a second TSM server with a shared 3584 library and I need some help. Heres the config. Server A aix 5.1 tsm server 5.3.1.6 fiber connection to library Server B same as above. I have set up server to server communications and was able to set up the library on the second server. However I cannot define drives. I am following the redbook walkthrough on this and they say to do a def drive libname drivename. When I do this though I get tsm: NA_TSM_CRITdef drive 3584a drive01 ANR8403E DEFINE DRIVE: Operation not allowed for SHARED libraries. ANS8001I Return code 3.. Is there something I am missing. I know server to server com is working... If I try to def path of course it says drive 01 is not defined Thanks in advance, Andrew This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you.
Re: Library sharing
You need to define the paths for the library client on the library manager: LIBMGR = Library Manager LIBCLT = Library Client (as defined on DEF SERVER) LIBMGRdef path LIBCLT DRIVEX srctype=server desttype=drive library=LIBRARYNAME device=/dev/your_device_as_see_by_libclient_operating_system Then you create a device class on library client poiting to the shared library LIBCLTdef devc CLASSNAME library=LIBRARYNAME devtype=DEVTYPE format=FORMAT mountlimit=DRIVES On 11/24/05, Meadows, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok I am attempting to install a second TSM server with a shared 3584 library and I need some help. Heres the config. Server A aix 5.1 tsm server 5.3.1.6 fiber connection to library Server B same as above. I have set up server to server communications and was able to set up the library on the second server. However I cannot define drives. I am following the redbook walkthrough on this and they say to do a def drive libname drivename. When I do this though I get tsm: NA_TSM_CRITdef drive 3584a drive01 ANR8403E DEFINE DRIVE: Operation not allowed for SHARED libraries. ANS8001I Return code 3.. Is there something I am missing. I know server to server com is working... If I try to def path of course it says drive 01 is not defined Thanks in advance, Andrew This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you. -- Helder Garcia
Library Sharing Errors
Hi , Im Running 3 TSM Server with one Library, The Library is Shared between all of the TSM Servers, 2 TSM Servers are AIX and i dont have any Problem with the Library , its runs 2 Yearswith no problem, The Problem Start when i add the Third TSM Server its SLES 9 connected with FC to the Library, I create the Server in the Library Manager, i create the Paths between them , in the library client i create the Library and the same Device Class, My problem is that every thime that i want to use the Library, i got the error ANRD mmsshr.c(3487): ThreadId23 Unable to obtain model type for '/dev/IBMtape0', rc = 46 ANR0409I Session 18 ended for server LANCELOT (AIX-RS/6000). when i run a backup db command , i see that the Library mounts the Volume to the drive and after 5 sec's its dismount it and send this error My os its Sles 64 bit(x86_64), the TSM server 5.3.1.4(Both Library Manager and Client), my Atape Driver is IBMtape-2.0.8-2.6.5-7.151.x86_64.rpm.bin does anyone got this problem before ? -- Moti Holtzman System admin unix/linux Weizmann Institute of science Rehovot Tel: 971-8-9343797 Fax: 971-8-9344102 Cell: 971-054-2118168
Re: Library sharing problem (device 3581-2U L28) TSM v. 5.2
Jin Bae Chi wrote: If SCSI is directly attached to only one server and the other cannot see at all, I don't see how you will make it shared. Both servers must see any shared drive at OS level. If FC drive on LTO libr is too expensive, you can take a look at IBM 2108 SAN Data gateway router. Gus Thanks for answer! I'll try to use virtual volumes to store data on another server first. Regards, hb
Library sharing problem (device 3581-2U L28) TSM v. 5.2
Hello! I'm trying to set up library sharing among two servers (named LM and LC) as described in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Linux: Administrator's Guide (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/ITSML/GC23-4690-01/en_US/HTML/anrlgd5147.htm). Device I try to share: LTO 3581 Ultrium 2U tape autoloader library SCSI attached to LM server only. (Library: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/support/lto/3581-2u/index.html) On LC server is storage pools hierarchy that use library. When I'm trying to force disk storage pool data flush to tape i get following error: (on LC server) ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/IBMtape0, error number=2. ANR8965W The server is unable to automatically determine the serial number for the device. ANR8873E The path from source LC to destination DRIVE1 (/dev/IBMtape0) is taken offline. I realized that the configuration that I'm trying to set up IS NOT SAN! The library is attached only to one server (LM server) by SCSI and LC server does not see library special file /dev/IMBtape0 in own file system. Is possible to share that type of library among TSM servers that way? LM server: Linux/i386 Server Version 5, Release 2, Level 2.0 LC server: as above Thanks, hb
Re: Library sharing problem (device 3581-2U L28) TSM v. 5.2
If SCSI is directly attached to only one server and the other cannot see at all, I don't see how you will make it shared. Both servers must see any shared drive at OS level. If FC drive on LTO libr is too expensive, you can take a look at IBM 2108 SAN Data gateway router. Gus [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/25/05 8:53 AM Hello! I'm trying to set up library sharing among two servers (named LM and LC) as described in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Linux: Administrator's Guide (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/ITSML/GC23-4690-01/en_US/HTML/anrlgd5147.htm). Device I try to share: LTO 3581 Ultrium 2U tape autoloader library SCSI attached to LM server only. (Library: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/storage/support/lto/3581-2u/index.html) On LC server is storage pools hierarchy that use library. When I'm trying to force disk storage pool data flush to tape i get following error: (on LC server) ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/IBMtape0, error number=2. ANR8965W The server is unable to automatically determine the serial number for the device. ANR8873E The path from source LC to destination DRIVE1 (/dev/IBMtape0) is taken offline. I realized that the configuration that I'm trying to set up IS NOT SAN! The library is attached only to one server (LM server) by SCSI and LC server does not see library special file /dev/IMBtape0 in own file system. Is possible to share that type of library among TSM servers that way? LM server: Linux/i386 Server Version 5, Release 2, Level 2.0 LC server: as above Thanks, hb
TSM Library Sharing Compatibility .. *Upgrading to TSM 5.3*
As it relates to Tivoli Storage Manager SAN Tape Library Sharing. Can anyone tell me if a TSM Server 5.3.0.0 as a library manager is compatible with a TSM Server 5.2.2.0 as a library client? They are sharing a 3494. I would like to avoid upgrading both of my TSM servers at the same time if possible. Thanks in advance. Dave
Library sharing issue
Hi, I'm working in a library sharing env.: * library manager: TSM 5.1.9.3 on Solaris8 * 5 library clients: TSM 5.1.9.3 on Solaris8 * tape library: IBM 3584 (12 LTO drives) For testing purposes I added a new TSM library client. It is also a TSM 5.1.9.3 but it's running on a Linux RedHat Enterprise 3. At the command line (with IBMtapeutil) everything is working fine (all operations with media changer drives). When I try to mount a tape through TSM (when doing for instance a backup db) I have the following error: ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/IBMtape0, error number=16. This message appears in loop in the logs (until a cancel process command is issued). The library manager doesn't assign an empty drive to the Linux library client but instead always send it to the first one (/dev/IBMtape0) regardless of its state. * The path to the library is defined once for the library manager. * A path towards each drive is defined for each library client. Am I missing something here ? Do I have to define a second time a path to the library on the library manager for the Linux server (due to differences in special files naming) ? Ideas are more than welcome :-) Thanks in advance.
Re: Howto define path in a library sharing env.
Yes I have. define libr define drive (12 times) define path for libman to libr define path for libman to drives (12 times) define path for libclient-solaris to drives (12 times) - working fine define path for libclient-linux to drives (12 times) - unable to mount anything On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:52:12 -0500, Davidson, Becky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you define a path on the library manager for the library client? On manager you Define drive libname drive Define path libman drive srct=serv destt=drive libr=libname devi=whateverdevicenameis Define path libclient drive srct=serv destt=drive libr=libname devi=whateverdevicenameis -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gilles Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Howto define path in a library sharing env. Hi, In a library sharing env. with the library manager [5.1.9.3] running on Solaris8 and the library clients [5.1.9.3] running on various OS (Solaris8 Linux) how do I have to define the PATH to the library [IBM3584] ? only once ? With n Solaris8 library clients the path to the library is only defined once on the library manager (working fine). Later I introduced a Linux library client. Server to server communication is working fine but I'm unable to mount tape volumes from it (path to drives are defined). I checked with IBMtapeutil the library the drives and everything is working fine. I'm out of ideas, so suggestions are more than welcome.
Howto define path in a library sharing env.
Hi, In a library sharing env. with the library manager [5.1.9.3] running on Solaris8 and the library clients [5.1.9.3] running on various OS (Solaris8 Linux) how do I have to define the PATH to the library [IBM3584] ? only once ? With n Solaris8 library clients the path to the library is only defined once on the library manager (working fine). Later I introduced a Linux library client. Server to server communication is working fine but I'm unable to mount tape volumes from it (path to drives are defined). I checked with IBMtapeutil the library the drives and everything is working fine. I'm out of ideas, so suggestions are more than welcome.
3494 library sharing serious problem - HELP!
Has anyone done this successfully at code level 5.2.0.1. I have 2 TSM servers both at the same code level, I am trying to do library sharing using the TSM1 server as the library manager and TSM2 server as the client. The paths are defined to TSM1(the manager) and everything works except a DB backup. I can dump disk pools on TSM2 to TSM1 and write backups directly to tape, however when I do a DB backup (backup db type=full devclass=3590tape) the client TSM2 crashes. TSM actually goes down and produces a core dump. Per TSM support, there is a known bug(Internal Defect #11305), which is a enter process communication problem, and there is no documentation on it. I just have to take TSM support's word. As you all know, it is hard to convince management to take an outtage without some formal doc. Per TSM support I have to upgrade to 5.2.1.0 to resolve the issue. OKIf there is a communication problem then why can I dump diskpools and write data directly to tape to the TSM library manager? Any suggestions or comments would be great... Thanks, Jason
Re: 3494 library sharing serious problem - HELP!
Hi, There are a lot of fixes in the V5.2.X series of ITSM, and if you use this in a library client - manager config there are serious reasons to do upgrades. Please take a look at the patches fix in the different patch and maintenance releases. ftp://ftp.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/pub/tsm/mirror/ I think if you get the list of fixed items from the latest maintenance release, you will have the ammo to convince your management to give you some downtime. Also, there is some issue's concerning db back-ups and crashing library managers mentioned in the 5.2.1.0 list of fixes. Regards, Karel -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Cain, Jason (Corporate) Sent: dinsdag 27 juli 2004 17:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494 library sharing serious problem - HELP! Has anyone done this successfully at code level 5.2.0.1. I have 2 TSM servers both at the same code level, I am trying to do library sharing using the TSM1 server as the library manager and TSM2 server as the client. The paths are defined to TSM1(the manager) and everything works except a DB backup. I can dump disk pools on TSM2 to TSM1 and write backups directly to tape, however when I do a DB backup (backup db type=full devclass=3590tape) the client TSM2 crashes. TSM actually goes down and produces a core dump. Per TSM support, there is a known bug(Internal Defect #11305), which is a enter process communication problem, and there is no documentation on it. I just have to take TSM support's word. As you all know, it is hard to convince management to take an outtage without some formal doc. Per TSM support I have to upgrade to 5.2.1.0 to resolve the issue. OKIf there is a communication problem then why can I dump diskpools and write data directly to tape to the TSM library manager? Any suggestions or comments would be great... Thanks, Jason
Server-to-server communications through a firewall for Library Sharing
The subject pretty much covers it. I need to communicate between TSM servers, one behind a firewall (tape Library Client), the other not (tape Library Manager which communicates with the 3494 which has the SAN FC attached drives)... It would be nice if the two servers always kept the connection open and communicated across the same link, once the client TSM server established the connection with the Library Manager TSM server. Has anyone else done this kind of configuration ? Is there something I can code in the server options to control/manage this ?
Re: Server-to-server communications through a firewall for Library Sharing
I've just finished implementing this (although with a 3584). I had the 1500 port open to and from each server. Works like a charm! Guillaume Gilbert TSM Administrator CGI (514) 415-3000 x5091 -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: 6 mai 2004 13:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Server-to-server communications through a firewall for Library Sharing The subject pretty much covers it. I need to communicate between TSM servers, one behind a firewall (tape Library Client), the other not (tape Library Manager which communicates with the 3494 which has the SAN FC attached drives)... It would be nice if the two servers always kept the connection open and communicated across the same link, once the client TSM server established the connection with the Library Manager TSM server. Has anyone else done this kind of configuration ? Is there something I can code in the server options to control/manage this ?
Re: Library sharing
Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC
Re: Library sharing
I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Zoltan, Try lscfg -vl. $ lscfg -vl rmt0 DEVICELOCATION DESCRIPTION rmt0 10-58-00-4,0 IBM 3590 Tape Drive and Medium Changer ManufacturerIBM Machine Type and Model..03590E1A Serial Number...000C2646 Device Specific.(FW)E35A Loadable Microcode LevelA0B00E26 $ lscfg -vl rmt5 rmt5 P2-I5/Q1-W2001006045170A1A-L2E IBM 3580 Ultrium Tape Drive (FCP) ManufacturerIBM Machine Type and Model..ULT3580-TD2 Serial Number...1110089774 Device Specific.(FW)38D0
Re: Library sharing
The serial number can be found with the AIX command: lscfg -vl rmtX Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) IBM Premier Business Partner 121 Cheshire Lane, Suite 700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/01/04 07:58 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Library sharing Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March
Re: Library sharing
Serial numbers or the WWN of the device? Several responses showed you how to get the serial number, but the WWN can be gotten with 'lsattr -El rmtx' command. Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663
Re: Library sharing
Serial numbers on Win2003 -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Bill Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 1 april 2004 17:08 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Serial numbers or the WWN of the device? Several responses showed you how to get the serial number, but the WWN can be gotten with 'lsattr -El rmtx' command. Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use
Re: Library sharing
Serial numbers and WWN can be seen in the ITSM device driver info from the ITSM management console, if installed. Although we don't use the ITSM device driver for our library and drives, for this purposse we installed it anyway. Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Bill Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 1 april 2004 17:08 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Serial numbers or the WWN of the device? Several responses showed you how to get the serial number, but the WWN can be gotten with 'lsattr -El rmtx' command. Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing
Re: Library sharing
Thank you and everyone else who has help with these issues. I think I finally have these 3-TSM servers cross-sharing 2-Tape Libraries amongst themselves ! ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/01/2004 10:08:14 AM: Serial numbers or the WWN of the device? Several responses showed you how to get the serial number, but the WWN can be gotten with 'lsattr -El rmtx' command. Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Thanks for all the help in this area. I think I finally got it working ! Now then, how do I get this (WWN) or similar information from a Windows TSM server, since it too will be sharing the 3494ATL and/or LTO2 library ? I can see the serial numbers on the 2K3 server. How can I get the serial-numbers from AIX ? Sorry to be so dense..I am not an AIX person..still learning ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM
Library sharing
Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
make sure that /dev/rmt1 on source server is the same drive as /dev/rmt1 on the client server We discovered that they didn't always come in the same. It sound like the server to server communications is working fine. Becky -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
Re: Library sharing
This just gets stranger. I tried using TAPEUTIL to look at the serial no. of the drives. When I do a CLOSE of the drive, I also get the ERR 46. Something is awry ! Bill Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/2004 12:08 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: Library sharing Then substitute storage agent client for library client. You define the paths on the library manager server. The PATHS reference the library client servername, the library name (which I believe must be the same name) and the drive names as defined on the library manager server. You then use the DEVICE= to point to the /dev/rmtx device on the library client server that matches the same device on the library manager server. Let's say on the TSM library manager server: Library:3584 Drive: LTO1/dev/rmt1 Drive: LTO2/dev/rmt2 Your library client server name is LIBCLIENT (or whatever) and you have the following drives: /dev/rmt3 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt1 on the library manager server /dev/rmt4 Which is the same device as /dev/rmt2 on the library manager server If these are fibre, you'll have to get the WWN names (lsattr -El rmtx) on both/all server and create a matrix that shows which is which on each server. Then on the library manager server: define path libclient lto1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 define path libclient lto2 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt4 Clear as mud, right? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Well, in this case, it isn't, sortof... I don't have *ANY* path statements on the client, that refer to these drives. All that is defined on the client is the SHARED LIBRARY. This is another TSM server, not just a storage agent. The path statements on the library manager are duplicated for the client, pointing to the client as the SOURCE serverand yes, both sets of definitions point to the same /dev/rmtx. I am beginning to wonder if it has to do with the different levels of ATAPE. The client is much newer (8.4.1.0) while the library manager is 8.3.x. ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/31/2004 11:07:04 AM: When you define the PATHs on the TSM server for the storage agent on the client node, the device= is the name of the tape drive on the client, not on the server. You need to match the drive name on the TSM server to the correct device name on the client node, then use that in the DEFINE PATH. So on your TSM server: If library 3584 drive LTO1 points to the /dev/rmt1 device and on the storage agent client SA1 that same physical drive is the /dev/rmt3 device you would use: define path SA1 LTO1 srctype=server desttype=drive library=3584 device=/dev/rmt3 Bill Boyer DSS, Inc. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karel Bos Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Library sharing Hi, Can be, but don't have to be the same... In the past I saw some machines with different device names for the same devices and it worked well with ITSM (on Windows). Regards, Karel -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Amos Hagay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: woensdag 31 maart 2004 17:46 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: Library sharing Hi, From my experience with 3584 Library, the rmt devices should be The same on both machines e.g. server_1 /dev/rmt1 /dev/rmt2 etc... And also on the library client /dev/rmt1 ... AH -Original Message- From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Library sharing Trying to get ATL library sharing working between two TSM AIX servers. I think I finally got the definitions correct..at least they seem to function. However, I can't get the library client (capella) to use the drives. Every time it does, I get these errors in the activity log: 03/31/2004 09:54:13 ANR8779E Unable to open drive /dev/rmt1, error number=46. (SESSION: 2663, PROCESS: 11) The library manager says the tape is mounted and ready. 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR8337I 3590 volume 070330 mounted in drive ATL-DRIVE2 (/dev/rmt1). 03/31/2004 09:52:25 ANR9791I Volume 070330 in library 3494ATL ownership is changing from TSM-AGENA to TSM-CAPELLA. Any suggestions on what might be wrong ? AIX messages says the -46 is Drive Not Ready. These are FC / SAN attached 3590E1A drives.
cross platform library sharing aix w2k
Dear Listers, Does anybody knows if it is possible to share a library between AIX and w2k. Using the sharing functionality in TSM. THNX, Koen _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k
Hi, yes it is, just make sure the path/devices match, i.e. /dev/rmt0 -- mt0.1.0.1 Best Regards Markus Veit An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: Thema: cross platform library sharing aix w2k [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received : 21.01.2004 13:09 Bitte antworten an ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Dear Listers, Does anybody knows if it is possible to share a library between AIX and w2k. Using the sharing functionality in TSM. THNX, Koen _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k
Thnx Markus, You gave me the right answer in the right time ...boy I love this list... Best Regards, Koen. From: Markus Veit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:32:32 +0100 Hi, yes it is, just make sure the path/devices match, i.e. /dev/rmt0 -- mt0.1.0.1 Best Regards Markus Veit An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: Thema: cross platform library sharing aix w2k [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received : 21.01.2004 13:09 Bitte antworten an ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Dear Listers, Does anybody knows if it is possible to share a library between AIX and w2k. Using the sharing functionality in TSM. THNX, Koen _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/ _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
Antwort: Re: Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k
Hi, there is another thing, do not share w2k and aix uplinks from a SAN switch to a SAN gateway, because on one connection you can define only one HOSTTYPE, i.e. autosense/NT or AIX. Aix sometimes uses longer SCSI commands for HOSTTYPE autosense/NT Best Regards Markus Veit An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: Thema: Re: Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received : 21.01.2004 15:24 Bitte antworten an ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Thnx Markus, You gave me the right answer in the right time ...boy I love this list... Best Regards, Koen. From: Markus Veit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Antwort: cross platform library sharing aix w2k Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:32:32 +0100 Hi, yes it is, just make sure the path/devices match, i.e. /dev/rmt0 -- mt0.1.0.1 Best Regards Markus Veit An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: Thema: cross platform library sharing aix w2k [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received : 21.01.2004 13:09 Bitte antworten an ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Dear Listers, Does anybody knows if it is possible to share a library between AIX and w2k. Using the sharing functionality in TSM. THNX, Koen _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/ _ Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
TSM-server running under non-root user fails library-sharing
Hello everybody, I try to configure a tsm-server running with a non-root user-id. It's TSM 5.1 with a 3494 library shared from another TSM 5.1 library manager Starting dsmserv as non-root the server crashes with a core when trying to make a database backup. With starting dsmserv as root this works fine. messages are like this: first one line like this: ANRD blkdisk.c(1783): ThreadId3 Error 5 from lio_listio64, lio count 64 then some lines like this: ANRD blkdisk.c(1786): ThreadId30: buf=110685000, len=4096, offset=1028653056, rc=4096 (0) many lines like this: ANRD blkdisk.c(1786): ThreadId3 11: buf=11069, len=4096, offset=1074790400, rc=-1 (5) and finally that: ANR0252E Error writing logical page 250880 (physical page 251136) to database volume /tsm/volumes/o00tsmtoe2- /stg01/dbvol00b.TSMTOFF00. ANRD Error writing to database logical volume. ANR7838S Server operation terminated. ANR7837S Internal error BUF087 detected. 0x0001000ab7cc DbBufferWriter 0x00018548 StartThread 0x09254fdc _pthread_body anyone any ideas? regards Paul
Re: TSM-server running under non-root user fails library-sharing
... ANR0252E Error writing logical page 250880 (physical page 251136) to database volume /tsm/volumes/o00tsmtoe2- /stg01/dbvol00b.TSMTOFF00. ANRD Error writing to database logical volume. ANR7838S Server operation terminated. ANR7837S Internal error BUF087 detected. Paul - The probably reason is outlined in the explanation of those messages in http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts Root typically has high Unix Resource Limits (as per AIX /etc/security/limit) while more mortal, non-root users do not. Check this in your system for the username which invoked TSM. In whatever shell you are employing, use its appropriate limits command to boost the limit to accommodate your file sizes. Certainly, the filesize limit needs to be well over 2 GB. Richard Sims, http://people.bu.edu/rbs
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
You can do it pretty easy with 3494 - just set both servers to use different categories. Then they will be treated as separate applications and will only iteract with the library manager. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14.11.2003 20:03 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Rejean, Thanks for the info-- it's what I was afraid of. I'll have to figure out some other way to get drives to the test server. Have a nice weekend! lisa Rejean Larivee Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor To Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc .EDU Subject Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 11/13/2003 05:05 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server PMon AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Hello, since you specify that you do library sharing between a TSM 5.1 server and a TSM 5.2 server then this is a problem. As the TSM 5.2 server readme says : * Library Sharing and LAN-Free Upgrade Considerations * Compatibility - Version 5.2 and above of the Server and Storage Agent are not backwards compatible with version 5.1 and below of the Server and Storage Agent when in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment. All Servers and Storage Agents in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment must be upgraded to 5.2 in order to function properly. So, in other words, you must upgrade the TSM 5.1 server to TSM 5.2 so that both library client and library manager are at TSM 5.2. Later, - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM Level 2 Support ...
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
Rejean, Thanks for the info-- it's what I was afraid of. I'll have to figure out some other way to get drives to the test server. Have a nice weekend! lisa Rejean Larivee Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor To Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc .EDU Subject Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 11/13/2003 05:05 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server PMon AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Hello, since you specify that you do library sharing between a TSM 5.1 server and a TSM 5.2 server then this is a problem. As the TSM 5.2 server readme says : * Library Sharing and LAN-Free Upgrade Considerations * Compatibility - Version 5.2 and above of the Server and Storage Agent are not backwards compatible with version 5.1 and below of the Server and Storage Agent when in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment. All Servers and Storage Agents in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment must be upgraded to 5.2 in order to function properly. So, in other words, you must upgrade the TSM 5.1 server to TSM 5.2 so that both library client and library manager are at TSM 5.2. Later, - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM Level 2 Support Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Sent by: ADSM: Subject: Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX Dist Stor 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 11/13/2003 05:38 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Thanks Justin- there is a small difference on library client Atape.driver 8.3.6.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library on library manager Atape.driver 8.3.1.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library I'll update the Atape on the manager tomorrow and see what happens lisa Justin Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU To Sent by: ADSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dist Stor cc Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c 11/13/2003 02:49 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Check your Atape driver level and atldd driver level ? Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 03:32:58 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003
Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003 (81) Context report 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Thread AcceptorThread (59) is a parent thread related 02:19:07PM to: 81 11/13/2003 (59) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no sessions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessionThread : ANRD calling thread 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Session 90182:Type=Node, Id=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Platform=AIX-RS/6000, NodeId=67, Owner=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessType=16, Index=5, TermReason=0 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) RecvWaitTime=0.000 (samples=0) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Restored: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Retrieved: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Last Verb ( (Unknown) ), Last Verb State ( Recv ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) End Context report 02:19:07PM
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
Check your Atape driver level and atldd driver level ? Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 03:32:58 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003 (81) Context report 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Thread AcceptorThread (59) is a parent thread related 02:19:07PM to: 81 11/13/2003 (59) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no sessions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessionThread : ANRD calling thread 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Session 90182:Type=Node, Id=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Platform=AIX-RS/6000, NodeId=67, Owner=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessType=16, Index=5, TermReason=0 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) RecvWaitTime=0.000 (samples=0) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Restored: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Retrieved: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Last Verb ( (Unknown) ), Last Verb State ( Recv ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) End Context report 02:19:07PM
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
Thanks Justin- there is a small difference on library client Atape.driver 8.3.6.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library on library manager Atape.driver 8.3.1.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library I'll update the Atape on the manager tomorrow and see what happens lisa Justin Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU To Sent by: ADSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dist Stor cc Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c 11/13/2003 02:49 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Check your Atape driver level and atldd driver level ? Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 03:32:58 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003 (81) Context report 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Thread AcceptorThread (59) is a parent thread related 02:19:07PM to: 81 11/13/2003 (59) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no sessions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessionThread : ANRD calling thread 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Session 90182:Type=Node, Id=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Platform=AIX-RS/6000, NodeId=67, Owner=TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessType=16, Index=5, TermReason=0 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) RecvWaitTime=0.000 (samples=0) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Backup Objects ( bytes ) Restored: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Inserted: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Archive Objects ( bytes ) Retrieved: 0 ( 0.0 ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Last Verb ( (Unknown) ), Last Verb State ( Recv ) 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating AS Vol Context
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
One other thing that could cause an issues is the the rte codes tivoli.tsm.devices.aix5.rte 5.2.0.0C FIBM Tivoli Storage Manager Device Support runtime tivoli.tsm.server.aix5.rte 5.2.0.0C FIBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server Runtime I happen to be running same level code on both of the TSM severs. Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 04:38:49 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Thanks Justin- there is a small difference on library client Atape.driver 8.3.6.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library on library manager Atape.driver 8.3.1.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library I'll update the Atape on the manager tomorrow and see what happens lisa Justin Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU To Sent by: ADSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dist Stor cc Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c 11/13/2003 02:49 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Check your Atape driver level and atldd driver level ? Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 03:32:58 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003 (81) Context report 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Thread AcceptorThread (59) is a parent thread related 02:19:07PM to: 81 11/13/2003 (59) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no sessions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service sessions active. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssOpenSeg Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage service segments found. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating BF Copy Control Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No global copy control blocks. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) SessionThread : ANRD calling thread 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM
Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANR9999D smlshare.c
Hello, since you specify that you do library sharing between a TSM 5.1 server and a TSM 5.2 server then this is a problem. As the TSM 5.2 server readme says : * Library Sharing and LAN-Free Upgrade Considerations * Compatibility - Version 5.2 and above of the Server and Storage Agent are not backwards compatible with version 5.1 and below of the Server and Storage Agent when in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment. All Servers and Storage Agents in a Library Sharing or LAN-Free environment must be upgraded to 5.2 in order to function properly. So, in other words, you must upgrade the TSM 5.1 server to TSM 5.2 so that both library client and library manager are at TSM 5.2. Later, - Rejean Larivee IBM TSM Level 2 Support Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Sent by: ADSM: Subject: Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX Dist Stor 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 11/13/2003 05:38 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Thanks Justin- there is a small difference on library client Atape.driver 8.3.6.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library on library manager Atape.driver 8.3.1.0 COMMITTED IBM AIX Enhanced Tape and atldd.driver 5.4.8.0 COMMITTED IBM Automated Tape Library I'll update the Atape on the manager tomorrow and see what happens lisa Justin Case [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU To Sent by: ADSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dist Stor cc Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU Re: Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c 11/13/2003 02:49 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU Check your Atape driver level and atldd driver level ? Justin Lisa Laughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 11/13/2003 03:32:58 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Library sharing from a 5.1 AIX 4.3.3.11 TSM server to a 5.2 server on AIX 5.1ML4-ANRD smlshare.c Hello out there-- anyone got any ideas on this one? I've googled (and searched the APAR db) the smlshare.c and the unknown verbType and come up with nothing. I have server-to-server working, and I have set up the 3494 library as shared on TSM_HQ3 and defined the paths on the library manager as they would appear to the library client (ie. define path tsm_hq3 aa710 srct=server destt=drive libr=3494b devi=/dev/rmt0 online=yes) and I can do an mtlib on the client to the defined lmcpd for the library manager. What am I missing?? TIA lisa 11/13/2003 ANR0408I Session 90182 started for server TSM_HQ3 02:19:07PM (AIX-RS/6000) (Tcp/Ip) for library sharing. 11/13/2003 ANRD smlshare.c(2174): ThreadId81 Server-to-Server 02:19:07PM protocol error. unknown verbType=20992. 11/13/2003 (81) Context report 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (81) Thread AcceptorThread (59) is a parent thread related 02:19:07PM to: 81 11/13/2003 (59) Generating TM Context Report: (struct=tmTxnDesc) 02:19:07PM (slots=256) 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating Database Transaction Table Context: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no transactions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating SM Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) *** no sessions found *** 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating AS Vol Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No mounted (or mount in progress) volumes. 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) Generating ssSession Context Report: 02:19:07PM 11/13/2003 (59) No storage
Library-sharing
Hi all, We have to expand our TSM-infrastructure. Today we have 2 * H80 (AIX 5.1), 2 * 3494 (each with 8 * 3590 E1A connected via SCSI to H80) I would prefer to get 2 more AIX-Servers (6C4) with SAN-adapters and 2 * library with 3592 (or LTO) adapted to the SAN. But that is the most expensive way. My question : is it possible to expand the existing 3494 Tape-Library with a frame with 2 (4) 3592 drives and work with this part of the library from another TSM-instance on another Unix-Server (independent from the other TSM-Server). I don't want to share the drives between the instances, I want to use the SCSI-3590-drives on one server, the 3592-SAN-drives on the other server. I think I have to bring the Library itself to SAN (??) to have it shared. But is then always one TSM-Server the Library-manager (master), or can I define a library for the SCSI-drives on one server and another library (in fact the same hardware) with the SAN-drives (3592) on another TSM-server ??? Thanks for any help Chr. Pilgram Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH Co.KG IT Department Christoph Pilgram Tel. +49 7351 54 4051 Birkendorfer Str.65 Fax. +49 7351 83 4051 88397 Biberach Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Germany
Re: Library-sharing
We have used two methods in the past and are looking at a third alternative for the future. In the past, I partitioned the 3494 and divided the six SCSI drives we had between between two systems, four and two. At present we have a single 3494, with five frames, two fibre connected drives, and 6 SCSI drives hooked into a San Data Gateway, shared between two systems. It works, but offers more headaches than I need. We are looking to replace this with a Licensed Library Manager, either on a zLinux platform (if it will work) or a small AIX or Linux86 box. At 08:20 AM 10/28/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hi all, We have to expand our TSM-infrastructure. Today we have 2 * H80 (AIX 5.1), 2 * 3494 (each with 8 * 3590 E1A connected via SCSI to H80) I would prefer to get 2 more AIX-Servers (6C4) with SAN-adapters and 2 * library with 3592 (or LTO) adapted to the SAN. But that is the most expensive way. My question : is it possible to expand the existing 3494 Tape-Library with a frame with 2 (4) 3592 drives and work with this part of the library from another TSM-instance on another Unix-Server (independent from the other TSM-Server). I don't want to share the drives between the instances, I want to use the SCSI-3590-drives on one server, the 3592-SAN-drives on the other server. I think I have to bring the Library itself to SAN (??) to have it shared. But is then always one TSM-Server the Library-manager (master), or can I define a library for the SCSI-drives on one server and another library (in fact the same hardware) with the SAN-drives (3592) on another TSM-server ??? Thanks for any help Chr. Pilgram Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH Co.KG IT Department Christoph Pilgram Tel. +49 7351 54 4051 Birkendorfer Str.65 Fax. +49 7351 83 4051 88397 Biberach Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Germany Fred Johanson ITSM Administration NSIT/DCS University of Chicago 773-702-8464
Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING
This is a great job! but what I need is a little bit different. I want to share my LTO 3584 with 2 AIX TSM servers. One of them is 4.2.3.3 and the other is 5.1.6.5 Please, let me know any configuration possible in this scenario. TIA. Sergio Vázquez Vegas Administración TSM *: 104688 *: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Mensaje original- De: Mark Ferraretto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de junio de 2003 3:21 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING Hi, There are two ways. You can set up a shared tape library. I haven't done this but I know you can. I've heard it's troublesome though. Or you can set up virtual volumes. We have 2 TSM instances running on the same AIX server here - one for archives and one for backups. We use server-server communications, configuration manager and virtual volumes. I chose virtual volumes over shared library because I wanted to consolidate the storage (especially the disk pool) and I wanted to simplify tape management. Anyway, Check out Ch 20 in the TSM Administrator's guide. It has a good explanation on server to server setup and VV's. Also, I've pasted some notes I made when I was setting up our second instance here. Hope they make sense. Let me know if they don't. Mark Can distribute this with profiles * administrators + authorities * policy objects * admin command schedules * scripts * clopts * server definitions * server groups What it doesn't include: * associations * DRM stuff admin comm sch's need to be turned on after being copied across will probably need to reactivate the policy too Create a profile to distribute everything: def profile DB def profileassociation admins=* adsch=* scr=* do=* clo=* Need to re-run this regularly to capture updates to objects delete the standard policy domain could use set configrefresh to update profiles but we'll live with the default of 60 minutes on tsmsb1 * create a new server policy domain def dom server def pol server server def mgmt server server1 Y1 def copy server server1 Y1 t=a retver=370 dest=D1 assign defmgmtclass server server1 y1 activate pol server server1 notify subscribers * register sm041a as a server node register node sm041a lacla52 domain=server type=server on sm041a * define devclass (server is already defined - see figure 69 p438 def devclass server devtype=server servername=hkgintsmsb1 maxcap=5g Now just user the server devclass when doing backups and stuff. eg: ba db devcl=server (database was backed up to d1!) looks like db backup is backed up as archive to D1 - C1. I wonder when it will expire? * define a storage pool to point to the server def stg d1 server maxscratch=9 reclaim=100 (we will have to do reclamation for this stgpool also) If we are strict about keeping info on tsmsb1 we may be able to use export server which exports everything including node info. We can also use this to move archive info to sm041a export server filed=ar tos=sm041a previewi=yes merge=yes replacedefs=no Or I can just export nodes export node * filed=ar tos=sm041a merge=yes previewi=yes (this exports archive data also) this exports just the node data: export node * tos=sm041a export nodes never works. I need to define a D1 stg pool on sm041a - I think because it's the destination of the backups/archives for that node. Maybe I can use D1 instead of SERVER as a stg pool. Then I can use the existing Y1 archive MC. Yup. Looks like this will work OK. * register node sm041a lacla52 domain= At the client * need to add sm041a to the dsm.sys file * need to run dsmc -se=sm041a set password * Then we either run 2 x dsmc schedule processes (-se=hkgintsmsb1 and -se=sm041a) or we don't bother with the archive scheudle and initiate archives from the clients. We have to do this for unix anyway and KP is looking to this for NT. Then, that means the only mod will be to dsm.sys Installation Notes This describes how I set up the 2nd server on hkgintsmsb1. The 2nd server is called sm041a First, create the server itself: * mkdir /tsmdb/sm041a - all the databases and config files for the server will go here * cp /usr/tivoli/tsm/server/bin/dsmserv.opt /tsmdb/sm041a * edit dsmserv.opt and make these changes: VOLUMEHistory /tsmdb/sm041a/volume_history DEVCONFig /tsmdb/sm041a/devconfig TCPPort 11500 HTTPPort11580 SHMPort 11510 * edit /usr/tivoli/tsm/client/ba/bin/dsm.sys and add an entry for the new server: ServerName sm041a TCPPort 11500 TCPServerAddresshkgintsmsb1 TCPWindowSize 32 TCPBuffSize 32 NodeNamehkgintsmsb1 PasswordAccess Generate * create the database and log volumes (we're only creating a 300MB vol in this example) cd /tsmdb/sm041a dsmfmt -db db1 300 dmsfmt -log log1 30 dsmserv format 1 log1 1 db1 * set up web access dsmserv runfile /usr/tivoli/tsm/server/webimages/dsmserv.idl * start
Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING
Not a problem. Your library manager instance must be at the same level or higher than the latest library client. Consider 5.1.7, since this fixes apar ic36335. You will need to set up paths in the library manager for all instances, no matter what version they are running; however only v5 library clients will make full use of the pathing. In v4 library clients, you will still need to define both library and drives. We currently share 5 libraries amongst a bunch of tsm servers at versions from 4.1.4 to 5.1.6.4. Regards, -=Dave=- +44 (0) 20 7608 7140 Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe. Vazquez Vegas, Sergio To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: ES Subject: Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU 18/06/2003 07:06 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager This is a great job! but what I need is a little bit different. I want to share my LTO 3584 with 2 AIX TSM servers. One of them is 4.2.3.3 and the other is 5.1.6.5 Please, let me know any configuration possible in this scenario. TIA. Sergio Vázquez Vegas Administración TSM *: 104688 *: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Mensaje original- De: Mark Ferraretto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de junio de 2003 3:21 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING Hi, There are two ways. You can set up a shared tape library. I haven't done this but I know you can. I've heard it's troublesome though. Or you can set up virtual volumes. We have 2 TSM instances running on the same AIX server here - one for archives and one for backups. We use server-server communications, configuration manager and virtual volumes. I chose virtual volumes over shared library because I wanted to consolidate the storage (especially the disk pool) and I wanted to simplify tape management. Anyway, Check out Ch 20 in the TSM Administrator's guide. It has a good explanation on server to server setup and VV's. Also, I've pasted some notes I made when I was setting up our second instance here. Hope they make sense. Let me know if they don't. Mark Can distribute this with profiles * administrators + authorities * policy objects * admin command schedules * scripts * clopts * server definitions * server groups What it doesn't include: * associations * DRM stuff admin comm sch's need to be turned on after being copied across will probably need to reactivate the policy too Create a profile to distribute everything: def profile DB def profileassociation admins=* adsch=* scr=* do=* clo=* Need to re-run this regularly to capture updates to objects delete the standard policy domain
TAPE LIBRARY SHARING
Hi TSMers: We have 1 AIX TSM Server 4.2.3.3 with 2 IBM LTO 3584. I want to install a new TSM server on AIX (version 5.1.6.5) and share the two libraries. Is it possible? How? Any ideas? Can anyone send me the detailed procedure? Este mensaje de correo electrónico y sus documentos adjuntos están dirigidos EXCLUSIVAMENTE a los destinatarios especificados. La información contenida puede ser CONFIDENCIAL y/o estar LEGALMENTE PROTEGIDA y no necesariamente refleja la opinión de ENDESA. Si usted recibe este mensaje por ERROR, por favor comuníqueselo inmediatamente al remitente y ELIMÍNELO ya que usted NO ESTA AUTORIZADO al uso, revelación, distribución, impresión o copia de toda o alguna parte de la información contenida. Gracias. This e-mail message and any attached files are intended SOLELY for the addressee/s identified herein. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information and may not necessarily represent the opinion of ENDESA. If you receive this message in ERROR, please immediately notify the sender and DELETE it since you ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to use, disclose, distribute, print or copy all or part of the contained information. Thank you.
Re: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: TAPE LIBRARY SHARING EDU 06/17/03 05:23 PM Please respond to ADSM-L Hi TSMers: We have 1 AIX TSM Server 4.2.3.3 with 2 IBM LTO 3584. I want to install a new TSM server on AIX (version 5.1.6.5) and share the two libraries. Is it possible? How? Any ideas? Can anyone send me the detailed procedure? Este mensaje de correo electrónico y sus documentos adjuntos están dirigidos EXCLUSIVAMENTE a los destinatarios especificados. La información contenida puede ser CONFIDENCIAL y/o estar LEGALMENTE PROTEGIDA y no necesariamente refleja la opinión de ENDESA. Si usted recibe este mensaje por ERROR, por favor comuníqueselo inmediatamente al remitente y ELIMÍNELO ya que usted NO ESTA AUTORIZADO al uso, revelación, distribución, impresión o copia de toda o alguna parte de la información contenida. Gracias. This e-mail message and any attached files are intended SOLELY for the addressee/s identified herein. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information and may not necessarily represent the opinion of ENDESA. If you receive this message in ERROR, please immediately notify the sender and DELETE it since you ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to use, disclose, distribute, print or copy all or part of the contained information. Thank you. -- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
Re: 3584 Library sharing problems.
As you have already learned the hard way, library sharing would not work if you have not defined paths to *all* drives for sharing. Quote from TSM for AIX, Managed System for SAN Storage Agent User's Guide (GC32-0771-00; just the same wording I quoted for v4.2 in June last year): Define paths to all drives. Problems can occur if you do not define paths from the server to each drive in a library. In the TSM for AIX Administrator's Guide the requirement is not mandatory: Define the drives in the library ... Note: We recommend that you define all the drives in the shared library to the library client and library manager servers. Actually TSM Storage Agent is cut down server code. And I would bet that the docs have to be updated showing mandatory requirement for the server as well. Thinking the server code has some kind of library-sharing extensions (to take into account only drives with defined paths) over the storage agent seems less possible. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Anthonijsz, Marcel M SITI-ITDGE13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19.05.2003 13:05 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:3584 Library sharing problems. To all, I've a bit of a challenge. We're running TSM 5.1.6.3 on two AIX systems sharing a 3584 Tape library system. One AIX server acts as library manager with the library definitions and paths and drives. The AIX server acting as client only has the 'shared library' definition and one tape path relating it to the Library manager. So far no problems all seems to work fine. Now I want to add another TSM server to this running on AIX, same level also 4.3.3, but running TSM 4.2.1.15. So this is what I did: On library manager - defined the TSM server running 4.2.1.15 - defined tape path(s) to new server, only those 'known' to the new client due to the zoning of the switch to which the client is connected On library client - defined shared library - defined shared drives - defined new device class for the new to use library Here comes the real problem; when I start a process on the client which requests a tape, the client starts a session with the Library manager and the manager starts the mount of a scratch tapes and then informs the client via another session about which volume is mounted and on what drive. Then until now I've got a 100 % score on mismatching, for the manager loads the tapes on drives NOT known by the client, what is exactly what the client shows in the actlog and the process gets cancelled. What I don't understand is WHY does the manager NOT load the scratch tape on a drive related to the tape paths defined for this client, it just seems to pick any available drive and informs the client. What's the use then of defining the paths if they're not taken into account during the mount? Marcel Anthonijsz Central Data Storage Manager (a.k.a. storman) Shell Information Technology International B.V. PO Box 1027, 2260 BA Leidschendam, The Netherlands Tel: +31-70 303 4984 Mob: +31-6 24 23 6522
Re: 3584 Library sharing problems.
FWIW: Talking with the TSM specialist we work with led me to think that the level of coordination you're looking for is a feature of the newer level of TSM. (aka 5.X) We ran into a similar issue with our LanFree tests. (not a problem for us though, just part of the learning process.) [RC] - Original Message - From: Anthonijsz, Marcel M SITI-ITDGE13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:05 AM Subject: 3584 Library sharing problems. To all, I've a bit of a challenge. We're running TSM 5.1.6.3 on two AIX systems sharing a 3584 Tape library system. One AIX server acts as library manager with the library definitions and paths and drives. The AIX server acting as client only has the 'shared library' definition and one tape path relating it to the Library manager. So far no problems all seems to work fine. Now I want to add another TSM server to this running on AIX, same level also 4.3.3, but running TSM 4.2.1.15. So this is what I did: On library manager - defined the TSM server running 4.2.1.15 - defined tape path(s) to new server, only those 'known' to the new client due to the zoning of the switch to which the client is connected On library client - defined shared library - defined shared drives - defined new device class for the new to use library Here comes the real problem; when I start a process on the client which requests a tape, the client starts a session with the Library manager and the manager starts the mount of a scratch tapes and then informs the client via another session about which volume is mounted and on what drive. Then until now I've got a 100 % score on mismatching, for the manager loads the tapes on drives NOT known by the client, what is exactly what the client shows in the actlog and the process gets cancelled. What I don't understand is WHY does the manager NOT load the scratch tape on a drive related to the tape paths defined for this client, it just seems to pick any available drive and informs the client. What's the use then of defining the paths if they're not taken into account during the mount? Marcel Anthonijsz Central Data Storage Manager (a.k.a. storman) Shell Information Technology International B.V. PO Box 1027, 2260 BA Leidschendam, The Netherlands Tel: +31-70 303 4984 Mob: +31-6 24 23 6522
Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time
Since I didn't get an answer the first time I sent this I assume nobody has ever done it. Does anybody have an opinion on whether it can be done this way or must I copy all of the data? Jim Sporer X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Sporer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing Cc: JAMES J SPORER [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a 3494 ATL that is shared between two TSM servers. Right now the Library is partitioned, meaning I have a separate set of private and scratch categories for each of the servers. I would like to change the library so one of the TSM servers is the primary library manager. Can I do this using the following steps? 1) Set up server to server communication between the library manager server and the library client server on both TSMs. 2) Update the library manager server library to shared=yes. 3) On the library client TSM checkout all tapes with the remove=no option. 4) delete the 3590 drives on the library client TSM. 5) delete the library on the library client TSM. 6) define the library on the library client TSM (define library libraryname libtype=shared primarylibmanager=primarytsm) 7) define the 3590 drives on the library client. We are running TSM 4.2.1.7. 8) issue the checkin command on the library client for the volumes checked out in step 3. (checkin libvol libraryname status=private checklabel=barcode search=yes) I have a question about step 8. Do I issue the checkin command on the primary library manager or the library client. If I issue the checkin on the primary library manager how does the primary library manager know that the tapes belong to the library client? Jim Sporer
Re: Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time
Have you thought about using an external media manager, such as Gresham EDT - DistribuTape? We have 3 TSM servers all sharing an STK9310 and it works great. -Original Message- From: Jim Sporer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time Since I didn't get an answer the first time I sent this I assume nobody has ever done it. Does anybody have an opinion on whether it can be done this way or must I copy all of the data? Jim Sporer X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Sporer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing Cc: JAMES J SPORER [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a 3494 ATL that is shared between two TSM servers. Right now the Library is partitioned, meaning I have a separate set of private and scratch categories for each of the servers. I would like to change the library so one of the TSM servers is the primary library manager. Can I do this using the following steps? 1) Set up server to server communication between the library manager server and the library client server on both TSMs. 2) Update the library manager server library to shared=yes. 3) On the library client TSM checkout all tapes with the remove=no option. 4) delete the 3590 drives on the library client TSM. 5) delete the library on the library client TSM. 6) define the library on the library client TSM (define library libraryname libtype=shared primarylibmanager=primarytsm) 7) define the 3590 drives on the library client. We are running TSM 4.2.1.7. 8) issue the checkin command on the library client for the volumes checked out in step 3. (checkin libvol libraryname status=private checklabel=barcode search=yes) I have a question about step 8. Do I issue the checkin command on the primary library manager or the library client. If I issue the checkin on the primary library manager how does the primary library manager know that the tapes belong to the library client? Jim Sporer
Re: Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time
You do checkins and checkouts on the library server. To let the library manager know that a tape belongs to a client do an audit library from that client. I don't remember if the path function came in 4.2 or 5.1 but if you have paths then you only define on the server not the client. Steps 1 - 6 look correct, not sure on 7 and 8 needs to be done on the library server. Then follow up with an audit library and you should be set. Good luck Becky -Original Message- From: Jim Sporer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time Since I didn't get an answer the first time I sent this I assume nobody has ever done it. Does anybody have an opinion on whether it can be done this way or must I copy all of the data? Jim Sporer X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Sporer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing Cc: JAMES J SPORER [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a 3494 ATL that is shared between two TSM servers. Right now the Library is partitioned, meaning I have a separate set of private and scratch categories for each of the servers. I would like to change the library so one of the TSM servers is the primary library manager. Can I do this using the following steps? 1) Set up server to server communication between the library manager server and the library client server on both TSMs. 2) Update the library manager server library to shared=yes. 3) On the library client TSM checkout all tapes with the remove=no option. 4) delete the 3590 drives on the library client TSM. 5) delete the library on the library client TSM. 6) define the library on the library client TSM (define library libraryname libtype=shared primarylibmanager=primarytsm) 7) define the 3590 drives on the library client. We are running TSM 4.2.1.7. 8) issue the checkin command on the library client for the volumes checked out in step 3. (checkin libvol libraryname status=private checklabel=barcode search=yes) I have a question about step 8. Do I issue the checkin command on the primary library manager or the library client. If I issue the checkin on the primary library manager how does the primary library manager know that the tapes belong to the library client? Jim Sporer
Re: Tape Library Sharing 2nd Time
Jim, That's pretty much what I did. One issue - at AIX 5.1 rml03, TSM 4.2.3.2 on client and server, after I do the define library on the client, the server starts giving mount errors. ANR8301E I/O error on library ATL (OP=004C6D31, SENSE=00.00.00.67). ANR9790W Request to mount volume *SCRATCH* for library client TSMXIBM failed. ANR0409I Session 447 ended for server TSMXIBM (AIX-RS/6000). but also for mounts from the server to itself. The server has to be bounced to make this go away. Regards Steve Harris AIX and TSM Admin Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 25/03/2003 6:32:57 Since I didn't get an answer the first time I sent this I assume nobody has ever done it. Does anybody have an opinion on whether it can be done this way or must I copy all of the data? Jim Sporer X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Sporer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tape Library Sharing Cc: JAMES J SPORER [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a 3494 ATL that is shared between two TSM servers. Right now the Library is partitioned, meaning I have a separate set of private and scratch categories for each of the servers. I would like to change the library so one of the TSM servers is the primary library manager. Can I do this using the following steps? 1) Set up server to server communication between the library manager server and the library client server on both TSMs. 2) Update the library manager server library to shared=yes. 3) On the library client TSM checkout all tapes with the remove=no option. 4) delete the 3590 drives on the library client TSM. 5) delete the library on the library client TSM. 6) define the library on the library client TSM (define library libraryname libtype=shared primarylibmanager=primarytsm) 7) define the 3590 drives on the library client. We are running TSM 4.2.1.7. 8) issue the checkin command on the library client for the volumes checked out in step 3. (checkin libvol libraryname status=private checklabel=barcode search=yes) I have a question about step 8. Do I issue the checkin command on the primary library manager or the library client. If I issue the checkin on the primary library manager how does the primary library manager know that the tapes belong to the library client? Jim Sporer ** This e-mail, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/ received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this e-mail is prohibited. It may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this e-mail in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by telephone or by return e-mail. You should also delete this e-mail message and destroy any hard copies produced. **
