Re: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
Hello, > I have hesitated going to 5.1 after hearing some of the stories > on this list > about 3494 problems, and resource manager timeouts. > at least the problem with expiration hangs is solved with IC34292. It is in 5.1.1.4. Best regards Gerhard --- Gerhard Rentschleremail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regional Computing Center tel. ++49/711/685 5806 University of Stuttgart fax: ++49/711/682357 Allmandring 30a D 70550 Stuttgart Germany
Re: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
What patch level of 5.1 are you running? I have hesitated going to 5.1 after hearing some of the stories on this list about 3494 problems, and resource manager timeouts. thanks, Bob Booth On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:23:56AM -0400, William Rosette wrote: > We went from 4.1 to 5.1 and enjoyed the expire working better with our > backupsets and volume history. I thought I would have a gotcha with our > 3494 tape library but that did not even get me. I do have to watch the > Tape Path along with the Tape Drive for tape issues, but other then most > minor problems our 5.1 seems to be running just as good if not better. We > even did a DR test and TSM seemed to work OK, for restore nodes. Our DR > plan needs to be revisited so that it can work more effecient, but we > always seem to want to do more tests each DR test time (once a year). 4 > years ago we had 20 tapes to restore and 2-3 clients, this year was 351 > tapes and 10 full restores, with network and frame cut overs. > > > > Thank You, > Bill Rosette > Data Center/IS/Papa Johns International > WWJD > > > |-+> > | | Michael Moore| > | || | C.COM> | > | | Sent by: "ADSM: | > | | Dist Stor| > | | Manager" | > | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| > | | .EDU>| > | || > | || > | | 09/05/2002 11:00 | > | | AM | > | | Please respond to| > | | "ADSM: Dist Stor | > | | Manager" | > | || > |-+> > >>--| > | >| > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | cc: >| > | Subject: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX >| > >>--| > > > > > We are thinking about upgrading our AIX TSM v4.1 server to v5.1 and > skipping version 4.2. > > My questions are: > Has anyone else done this? > How stable is v5.1 > Any gotchas that we need to watch out for? > > Thanks for any information you can provide!! > > Michael Moore > VF Services Inc. > 121 Smith Street > Greensboro, NC 27420-1488 > > Voice: 336-332-4423 > Fax: 336-332-4544
Re: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
We went from 4.1 to 5.1 and enjoyed the expire working better with our
backupsets and volume history. I thought I would have a gotcha with our
3494 tape library but that did not even get me. I do have to watch the
Tape Path along with the Tape Drive for tape issues, but other then most
minor problems our 5.1 seems to be running just as good if not better. We
even did a DR test and TSM seemed to work OK, for restore nodes. Our DR
plan needs to be revisited so that it can work more effecient, but we
always seem to want to do more tests each DR test time (once a year). 4
years ago we had 20 tapes to restore and 2-3 clients, this year was 351
tapes and 10 full restores, with network and frame cut overs.
Thank You,
Bill Rosette
Data Center/IS/Papa Johns International
WWJD
|-+>
| | Michael Moore|
| | |
| | Sent by: "ADSM: |
| | Dist Stor|
| | Manager" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | .EDU>|
| ||
| ||
| | 09/05/2002 11:00 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | "ADSM: Dist Stor |
| | Manager" |
| ||
|-+>
>--|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
|
>--|
We are thinking about upgrading our AIX TSM v4.1 server to v5.1 and
skipping version 4.2.
My questions are:
Has anyone else done this?
How stable is v5.1
Any gotchas that we need to watch out for?
Thanks for any information you can provide!!
Michael Moore
VF Services Inc.
121 Smith Street
Greensboro, NC 27420-1488
Voice: 336-332-4423
Fax: 336-332-4544
Re: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
We've been running for about a month at 5.1.1. Only issue we have encountered was with Windows 2000 and doing archives using alternate management classes. Other than that, it's worked great. Steve Argersinger Ruan Transportation -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX We are thinking about upgrading our AIX TSM v4.1 server to v5.1 and skipping version 4.2. My questions are: Has anyone else done this? How stable is v5.1 Any gotchas that we need to watch out for? Thanks for any information you can provide!! Michael Moore VF Services Inc. 121 Smith Street Greensboro, NC 27420-1488 Voice: 336-332-4423 Fax: 336-332-4544
TSM v5.1 Stability on AIX
We are thinking about upgrading our AIX TSM v4.1 server to v5.1 and skipping version 4.2. My questions are: Has anyone else done this? How stable is v5.1 Any gotchas that we need to watch out for? Thanks for any information you can provide!! Michael Moore VF Services Inc. 121 Smith Street Greensboro, NC 27420-1488 Voice: 336-332-4423 Fax: 336-332-4544
Re: TSM V5.1
Hi Andy!
You're right! I was still using the 4.2.0.0 ODBC driver. I retried the 5.1
ODBC install and when it prompted me for the Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC
Driver.msi I pointed it to the 4.2.0.0 setup on the CD. The setup continued
and the 5.1.0.1 version is now installed.
Thanks again Andy!!
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 18:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TSM V5.1
H... not a good sign.
I downloaded the driver this morning and verified the install myself, and
it went alright.
Do you have an existing ODBC driver installed? If so, which version?
I suspect that this could be an issue with removing the older ODBC driver.
Try this:
1) From Add/Remove Programs, remove the old ODBC driver.
2) You may get a prompt similar to the above. If so, go get the install
package for that driver, and extract the install image (but don't run
setup). Then try the uninstall again. If prompted, point to the .msi file
in the old driver's install image (the one you just unpacked).
3) If that works, then try installing the new driver.
Let me know how this goes.
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
"Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
04/12/2002 07:48
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: TSM V5.1
Hi Andy!
The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one
is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC
Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default:
C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid
installation
package...
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TSM V5.1
Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs.
the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday,
we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2
Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted
data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as
well.
For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well.
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
"Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
04/12/2002 02:42
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: TSM V5.1
The 5.1 clients are also available for download now.
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
-Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TSM V5.1
Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional
level software...
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky?
>
> Geoff Gill
> TSM Administrator
> NT Systems Support Engineer
> SAIC
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Phone: (858) 826-4062
> Pager: (877) 905-7154
>
Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University
814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802
**
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential
and privileged
material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee,
you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be
disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to
this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If
you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke
Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees
shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this
e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.
**
Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4
Andy, I do not want to say this was intentional. What I am mostly interested is which parts of v4.2.1.0 discussions are applicable for v5.1 client. If we look at the client as a black-box (and in fact customer does not need to know why and what drives the client to perform this way) we are having same behavior. Coincidence or not it doesn't matter. Backward compatibility is not a bad thing so I personally would be happy to see some kind of client option restoring v4.x behavior. After Tim's post I visited the site to check was is in the docs. And I wrote that this behavior is documented. For sure we do not have v4.2.1 "inconsistency" `-) I appreciated the RC=4 in v4.2.1 client and even was sad seeing its a bug and will go away. But as you know some inventions in Physics and Chemistry were results of mistakes :-) Unfortunately Share is too far for me (I have to traverse too many time zones to go there) and have no power to influence the development. Maybe would be worth to have some way to define which files should produce rc=4 on backup failure instead of digging down the logs. OTOH maybe I am too lazy. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4 >> my question is mainly targeted to Andy Raibeck but all opinions are welcome. This behavior was first implemeted at v4.2.1.0 client. The discussion at that time finished with opinion this was a bug and later behavior restored to normal. Now RC=4 is getting back but as a feature and is documented. << A keen observation, but entirely coincidental, and thus not an apt characterization. In 4.2.1.0, the RC=4 behavior was not "implemented" per se, as that would suggest intent. It wasn't as if that were a "sneak preview" of things to come. Rather, it was a bug (well documented in APAR IC31844) that was introduced as an unintentional side effect of another otherwise unrelated code change. RC=4 notwithstanding, in 5.1, the underlying intent, design, and code for the "consistent return codes" feature in no way, shape, or form, resembles the bug from 4.2.1.0. The RC=4 is at most a vague resemblance, but that is where any similarity ends. >> So the question I am asking myself and hoping for your help: Is RC=4 good indicator for successful backup with some files skipped? << Yes, just as it is documented in the book, which Tim quoted from below. This is what the "consistent" in "consistent return codes" is all about! :-) >> How would we check which files are not backed up? How to distinguish between files we can skip and files we absolutely do not want to miss backup? << Probably by whichever methods you already have in place (i.e. check the dsmerror.log, dsmsched.log, etc.). The "consistent return codes" feature is intended only to let you know the general status of the operation. By having the RC=0 and RC=4, you know exactly which clients skipped files. In prior versions of ADSM/TSM, you always got RC=0, regardless of whether any files were skipped, so you always had to check every client to see if it skipped files. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Zlatko Krastev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/13/2002 05:57 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4 Hello all, my question is mainly targeted to Andy Raibeck but all opinions are welcome. This behavior was first implemeted at v4.2.1.0 client. The discussion at that time finished with opinion this was a bug and later behavior restored to normal. Now RC=4 is getting back but as a feature and is documented. So the question I am asking myself and hoping for your help: Is RC=4 good indicator for successful backup with some files skipped? How would we check which files are not backed up? How to distinguish between files we can skip and files we absolutely do not want to miss backup? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant P.S. Some of you are lucky enough and already have the code. I am still waiting to put my hands on it. Zlatko Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question o
Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4
>> my question is mainly targeted to Andy Raibeck but all opinions are welcome. This behavior was first implemeted at v4.2.1.0 client. The discussion at that time finished with opinion this was a bug and later behavior restored to normal. Now RC=4 is getting back but as a feature and is documented. << A keen observation, but entirely coincidental, and thus not an apt characterization. In 4.2.1.0, the RC=4 behavior was not "implemented" per se, as that would suggest intent. It wasn't as if that were a "sneak preview" of things to come. Rather, it was a bug (well documented in APAR IC31844) that was introduced as an unintentional side effect of another otherwise unrelated code change. RC=4 notwithstanding, in 5.1, the underlying intent, design, and code for the "consistent return codes" feature in no way, shape, or form, resembles the bug from 4.2.1.0. The RC=4 is at most a vague resemblance, but that is where any similarity ends. >> So the question I am asking myself and hoping for your help: Is RC=4 good indicator for successful backup with some files skipped? << Yes, just as it is documented in the book, which Tim quoted from below. This is what the "consistent" in "consistent return codes" is all about! :-) >> How would we check which files are not backed up? How to distinguish between files we can skip and files we absolutely do not want to miss backup? << Probably by whichever methods you already have in place (i.e. check the dsmerror.log, dsmsched.log, etc.). The "consistent return codes" feature is intended only to let you know the general status of the operation. By having the RC=0 and RC=4, you know exactly which clients skipped files. In prior versions of ADSM/TSM, you always got RC=0, regardless of whether any files were skipped, so you always had to check every client to see if it skipped files. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. Zlatko Krastev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/13/2002 05:57 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4 Hello all, my question is mainly targeted to Andy Raibeck but all opinions are welcome. This behavior was first implemeted at v4.2.1.0 client. The discussion at that time finished with opinion this was a bug and later behavior restored to normal. Now RC=4 is getting back but as a feature and is documented. So the question I am asking myself and hoping for your help: Is RC=4 good indicator for successful backup with some files skipped? How would we check which files are not backed up? How to distinguish between files we can skip and files we absolutely do not want to miss backup? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant P.S. Some of you are lucky enough and already have the code. I am still waiting to put my hands on it. Zlatko Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question on the rc=4 with excluded files: The doc specifies: rc=4: The operation completed successfully, but some files were not processed. There were no other errors or warnings. This return code is very common. Files are not processed for various reasons. The most common reasons are: - The file is in an exclude list.. - The file was in use by another application and could not be accessed by the client - The file changed during the operation to an extent prohibited by the copy serialization attribute. I have a directory with one subdirectory exluded via exclude and exlude.archive. For an incremental of the directory I get rc=0, for an archive or a selective backup I get rc=4. I would rather see a different return code for an excluded file (I'm excluding it so I expect it to not get backed up!). I think a file that is missed because it is open or changed is much more serious than a file that is excluded. Why are the return codes inconsistent between incrementals and selective or archives? Or was my testing incorrect? Thanks, Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, you've discovered a new feature. If you are using PRESCHEDULECMD, then presumably you have some operation that you wish to complete prior to the scheduled TSM
Re: TSM V5.1 - RC=4
Hello all, my question is mainly targeted to Andy Raibeck but all opinions are welcome. This behavior was first implemeted at v4.2.1.0 client. The discussion at that time finished with opinion this was a bug and later behavior restored to normal. Now RC=4 is getting back but as a feature and is documented. So the question I am asking myself and hoping for your help: Is RC=4 good indicator for successful backup with some files skipped? How would we check which files are not backed up? How to distinguish between files we can skip and files we absolutely do not want to miss backup? Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant P.S. Some of you are lucky enough and already have the code. I am still waiting to put my hands on it. Zlatko Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question on the rc=4 with excluded files: The doc specifies: rc=4: The operation completed successfully, but some files were not processed. There were no other errors or warnings. This return code is very common. Files are not processed for various reasons. The most common reasons are: - The file is in an exclude list.. - The file was in use by another application and could not be accessed by the client - The file changed during the operation to an extent prohibited by the copy serialization attribute. I have a directory with one subdirectory exluded via exclude and exlude.archive. For an incremental of the directory I get rc=0, for an archive or a selective backup I get rc=4. I would rather see a different return code for an excluded file (I'm excluding it so I expect it to not get backed up!). I think a file that is missed because it is open or changed is much more serious than a file that is excluded. Why are the return codes inconsistent between incrementals and selective or archives? Or was my testing incorrect? Thanks, Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, you've discovered a new feature. If you are using PRESCHEDULECMD, then presumably you have some operation that you wish to complete prior to the scheduled TSM operation (i.e. shut down a database before incremental backup runs). In 5.1, we changed PRESCHEDULECMD so that if the command does end with return code 0, then the scheduled operation will not run. This change was based on user requirements. >From the use rmanual, in the section on what's new in 5.1: == Reliable, consistent, and documented return codes have been added to the command line client and the scheduler. This facilitates automation of client operations via user-written scripts. By using the QUERY EVENT command with the FORMAT=DETAILED option, administrators can now distinguish between scheduled backups that completed successfully with no skipped files and scheduled backups that completed successfully with one or more skipped files. Also if you use the processing option preschedulecmd to run a command, and that command returns a non-zero return code, the scheduled event will not run. This ensures that scheduled events will not run if prerequisite commands do not complete successfully. See Return Codes from the Command Line Interface, Preschedulecmd/Prenschedulecmd, and Postschedulecmd/Postnschedulecmd for more information. == Alternatively, if the command does not need to complete prior to running the scheduled operation, you can use PRENSCHEDULECMD, which runs asynchronously, and whose return code is not tracked. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes
Hi Tim, Yes, your testing is correct. Since the "file excluded" message (ANS1115W) is issued for selective and archive, you will get the rc 4; and since ANS1115W is not issued for incremental backup, the rc will be 0 (barring any other problems). Historically TSM has always worked this way, with the "file excluded" message being issued for selective and archive commands, but not incremental backup. The rationale is a bit subjective, but a lot of thought did go into it. - The most common substantive client operation is almost certainly incremental backup. Since it is implicitly understood (or should be understood) that incremental backup will not back up excluded files, we don't bother to issue the warning message. - The assumption we make behind selective backup is that you want to back up *all* files in the file specification (i.e. you have specifically targeted, or "selected" those files for backup). Thus any failure to back up any of the files in the file spec is flagged with the warning message. Of course, it is only assumption, and you know what happens when you assume but be that as it may, we have to assume *something*, one way or the other, so to be safe, we issue the warning message letting you know that certain files were not backed up. The argument for archive is similar, and maybe even more important, since archives are usually for longer retention periods: we make the assumption that if you are targeting files for long-term retention, you want them. All of them. Admittedly, this falls a bit flat if you have explicitly excluded the files with exclude.archive, clearly stating intent. On the other hand, if we issued no warning message, then less experienced customers who really want the files archived, but forgot about the excluded files, might not be happy, either. So I think the messages themselves are appropriate, albeit unnecessary for experienced customers. With that said, you make a fair point, and I think it merits some thought. Essentially, I think the issue comes down to whether we want to further break down "skipped" files into two categories: - files that are skipped unintentionally - files that are skipped by intent (i.e. via exclude) with two different return codes. Hopefully you understand that on this forum, I can not commit to making any such a change. Also, keep in mind that we deliberately set out to keep the number of return codes small so that they could be easily understood and managed; though in theory, there is no reason that we couldn't have additional codes, especially when it makes sense (as is possible here). So please consider this issue noted. Thanks, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Rushforth, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 14:28 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question on the rc=4 with excluded files: The doc specifies: rc=4: The operation completed successfully, but some files were not processed. There were no other errors or warnings. This return code is very common. Files are not processed for various reasons. The most common reasons are: - The file is in an exclude list.. - The file was in use by another application and could not be accessed by the client - The file changed during the operation to an extent prohibited by the copy serialization attribute. I have a directory with one subdirectory exluded via exclude and exlude.archive. For an incremental of the directory I get rc=0, for an archive or a selective backup I get rc=4. I would rather see a different return code for an excluded file (I'm excluding it so I expect it to not get backed up!). I think a file that is missed because it is open or changed is much more serious than a file that is excluded. Why are the return codes inconsistent between incrementals and selective or archives? Or was my testing incorrect? Thanks, Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, you've discovered a new feature. If you are using PRESCHEDULECMD, then presumably you have some operation that you wish to complete prior to the scheduled TSM operation (i.e. shut down a database before incremental backup runs). In 5.1, we changed PRESCHEDULECMD so that if the command does end with return code 0, then the scheduled operation will
Re: TSM V5.1
I have seen older levels of the Microsoft installer not work from network drives. So, if you have the package on a network drive move it to a local drive and try it. This is a known Microsoft bug. -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 H... not a good sign. I downloaded the driver this morning and verified the install myself, and it went alright. Do you have an existing ODBC driver installed? If so, which version? I suspect that this could be an issue with removing the older ODBC driver. Try this: 1) From Add/Remove Programs, remove the old ODBC driver. 2) You may get a prompt similar to the above. If so, go get the install package for that driver, and extract the install image (but don't run setup). Then try the uninstall again. If prompted, point to the .msi file in the old driver's install image (the one you just unpacked). 3) If that works, then try installing the new driver. Let me know how this goes. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 07:48 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 Hi Andy! The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default: C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid installation package... Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1 - new return codes
I think the addition of return codes is great but have a question on the rc=4 with excluded files: The doc specifies: rc=4: The operation completed successfully, but some files were not processed. There were no other errors or warnings. This return code is very common. Files are not processed for various reasons. The most common reasons are: - The file is in an exclude list.. - The file was in use by another application and could not be accessed by the client - The file changed during the operation to an extent prohibited by the copy serialization attribute. I have a directory with one subdirectory exluded via exclude and exlude.archive. For an incremental of the directory I get rc=0, for an archive or a selective backup I get rc=4. I would rather see a different return code for an excluded file (I'm excluding it so I expect it to not get backed up!). I think a file that is missed because it is open or changed is much more serious than a file that is excluded. Why are the return codes inconsistent between incrementals and selective or archives? Or was my testing incorrect? Thanks, Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, you've discovered a new feature. If you are using PRESCHEDULECMD, then presumably you have some operation that you wish to complete prior to the scheduled TSM operation (i.e. shut down a database before incremental backup runs). In 5.1, we changed PRESCHEDULECMD so that if the command does end with return code 0, then the scheduled operation will not run. This change was based on user requirements. >From the use rmanual, in the section on what's new in 5.1: == Reliable, consistent, and documented return codes have been added to the command line client and the scheduler. This facilitates automation of client operations via user-written scripts. By using the QUERY EVENT command with the FORMAT=DETAILED option, administrators can now distinguish between scheduled backups that completed successfully with no skipped files and scheduled backups that completed successfully with one or more skipped files. Also if you use the processing option preschedulecmd to run a command, and that command returns a non-zero return code, the scheduled event will not run. This ensures that scheduled events will not run if prerequisite commands do not complete successfully. See Return Codes from the Command Line Interface, Preschedulecmd/Prenschedulecmd, and Postschedulecmd/Postnschedulecmd for more information. == Alternatively, if the command does not need to complete prior to running the scheduled operation, you can use PRENSCHEDULECMD, which runs asynchronously, and whose return code is not tracked. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Re: TSM V5.1
Yes, you've discovered a new feature. If you are using PRESCHEDULECMD, then presumably you have some operation that you wish to complete prior to the scheduled TSM operation (i.e. shut down a database before incremental backup runs). In 5.1, we changed PRESCHEDULECMD so that if the command does end with return code 0, then the scheduled operation will not run. This change was based on user requirements. >From the use rmanual, in the section on what's new in 5.1: == Reliable, consistent, and documented return codes have been added to the command line client and the scheduler. This facilitates automation of client operations via user-written scripts. By using the QUERY EVENT command with the FORMAT=DETAILED option, administrators can now distinguish between scheduled backups that completed successfully with no skipped files and scheduled backups that completed successfully with one or more skipped files. Also if you use the processing option preschedulecmd to run a command, and that command returns a non-zero return code, the scheduled event will not run. This ensures that scheduled events will not run if prerequisite commands do not complete successfully. See Return Codes from the Command Line Interface, Preschedulecmd/Prenschedulecmd, and Postschedulecmd/Postnschedulecmd for more information. == Alternatively, if the command does not need to complete prior to running the scheduled operation, you can use PRENSCHEDULECMD, which runs asynchronously, and whose return code is not tracked. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Jolliff, Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 10:10 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 Right off the bat on the 5.1 client on WinXP - preschedulecommand scripts actually return an error level (I'm seeing RC=12) that will halt the schedule where they did not with version 4. -Original Message- From: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Hi Andy! The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default: C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid installation package... Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message----- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State Universit
Re: TSM V5.1
Right off the bat on the 5.1 client on WinXP - preschedulecommand scripts actually return an error level (I'm seeing RC=12) that will halt the schedule where they did not with version 4. -Original Message- From: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Hi Andy! The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default: C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid installation package... Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1
H... not a good sign. I downloaded the driver this morning and verified the install myself, and it went alright. Do you have an existing ODBC driver installed? If so, which version? I suspect that this could be an issue with removing the older ODBC driver. Try this: 1) From Add/Remove Programs, remove the old ODBC driver. 2) You may get a prompt similar to the above. If so, go get the install package for that driver, and extract the install image (but don't run setup). Then try the uninstall again. If prompted, point to the .msi file in the old driver's install image (the one you just unpacked). 3) If that works, then try installing the new driver. Let me know how this goes. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 07:48 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 Hi Andy! The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default: C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid installation package... Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1
Hi Andy! The 5.1.01 ODBC driver installation does not work. During installation one is prompted for the location of the file Tivoli Storage Manager ODBC Driver.msi. If you point to that file (by default: C:\TEMP\tsmcli\win32\odbc\disk1) it says that it's not a valid installation package... Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1
Yes, and be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 Windows clients from the FTP site, vs. the 5.1.0.0 clients shipped on the CD. As someone pointed out yesterday, we now have a 4.2.1.32 client to address APAR IC33211 (The TSM V4.2 Windows NT-based client acceptor service may crash if improperly formatted data is received from the HTTP port), and this APAR is fixed in 5.1.0.1 as well. For ODBC driver users, be sure to get the 5.1.0.1 ODBC driver as well. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence. "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2002 02:42 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: TSM V5.1 The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1
The 5.1 clients are also available for download now. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -Original Message- From: Jonathan Siegle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 21:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802 ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: TSM V5.1
Yes! Our first Guinea pig. Good luck Kimo Sabe (sp). Let us know how it works out. Now, if you decide you're not man enough, send the kit to me. I'll put in on a lab server and see what happens! I'm fearless on hardware that doesn't matter. And even on some that does (as long as it isn't mine). Kelly J. Lipp Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc. PO Box 51313 Colorado Springs, CO 80949 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.storsol.com or www.storserver.com (719)531-5926 Fax: (240)539-7175 -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Longo Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 You going to have it up and running by Monday? Make a document for us on what works and doesn't, conversion issues etc? David Longo >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/11/02 01:54PM >>> Hey everyone, I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154 "MMS " made the following annotations on 04/11/02 14:57:28 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. ==
Re: TSM V5.1
Try running your SELECT queries; last I heard, there were various problems with Summary table --- which is a key helper to sizing a current environment. There may be problems with other tables as well. Hope to hear more info on what works (eg, Win2000 online-image backups), and what doesn't. Regards, Don France Technical Architect - Tivoli Certified Consultant Professional Association of Contract Employees (P.A.C.E.) San Jose, CA (408) 257-3037 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "David Longo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: TSM V5.1 You going to have it up and running by Monday? Make a document for us on what works and doesn't, conversion issues etc? David Longo >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/11/02 01:54PM >>> Hey everyone, I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154 "MMS " made the following annotations on 04/11/02 14:57:28 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. ==
Re: TSM V5.1
Got mine on Monday. I really liked the TSM 5.1 cd with 4.2 functional level software... On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? > > Geoff Gill > TSM Administrator > NT Systems Support Engineer > SAIC > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone: (858) 826-4062 > Pager: (877) 905-7154 > Jonathan Siegle Center for Academic Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Penn State University 814-865-5840University Park, Pa 16802
Re: TSM V5.1
You going to have it up and running by Monday? Make a document for us on what works and doesn't, conversion issues etc? David Longo >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/11/02 01:54PM >>> Hey everyone, I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154 "MMS " made the following annotations on 04/11/02 14:57:28 -- This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. ==
TSM V5.1
Hey everyone, I just got my TSM V5.1 package of software. Anyone else get so lucky? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154
