When my daily database backup runs, it sometimes calls for a tape that has not come
back from offsite yet. This is the command I am using (we want to use the smaller J
tapes instead of K):
BACKUP DB Devclass=3590 Type=full
Vol=300260,300261,300262,300263,300264,300265,300266,300267,300268,300
The per processor charge does not apply to the client. It only applies
to the server. The thing to remember with 5.1, is that there are two
different versions of the server and client. The Base version and the
Enterprise Version. The Enterprise Edition server has a higher per
processor price than
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
havin
Ooops,
Solaris 2.6 is not in the list. It IS supported.
Sorry
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Processors in which machine(s)? If this is only server processors it is
little bit surprising to me (according to price book I look at processor
costs less than 200 Euro). If it is for client processors as well the
price goes too high.
Could you be so kind to provide exact Tivoli description from
Why do you need to cache disk pool volumes ?? Are you going to restore
just in the middle of backup. Or migrate to tape during backup.
I prefer to create disk pool volumes to raw devices and let TSM spread the
load. And it does this pretty well.
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Please respond to
The only fact might not be true is "big defense contractor working on a cutting-edge
project". OTOH it also may be true as well.
I cannot recall where I looked at a survey which pointed that over 50% of
small & medium enterprises in Germany perform backups rarely than monthly
or do not make any b
---> I think TIVOLI doesn't understand IBM's religious belief in upward
compatibility and so TSM 4 doesn't have a bridge from ADSM/TSM 3.
More than that now we have v5.1 which would support compatibility only
with v4.2.x. And v4.1 would be out of support very soon.
There were already many threads
Eliza,
TSM v5.1 is now announced so you can re-evaluate the things agains it.
Initial answer from Adolph Kahan was nearly perfect and answered all the
questions.
What for is trying IBM to sell you a SAN? Only for TSM or for some storage
consolidation? Be informed that SAN disk pool would help onl
Roy,
what additional level of protection do you achieve sending *primary* (!!!)
pool tapes off-site?
Juraj is absolutely correct - this is very bad practice. Copy pool tapes
can be ejected from library right after their creation or even made on a
"manual" library consisting of standalone drive(s)
>>
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
Processor means the number of CPUs. For example if you have an RS6000
with 4 CPUs, that is 4 processors. The new pricing is based on the
number of CPUs/processors in the machine.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Zlatko Krastev
Sent:
It depends.
If your nodes are not processor constrained - use compression.
If network is faster than nodes can pipe through - do not compress.
If you cannot afford big disk pools, do not have SAN, etc. - compression
might help.
So you have to decide. Some nodes might use it some other might not.
Hello *SMers,
I still need to obtain an answer what is hidden behind the new "processor"
term in Tivoli licensing scheme. It is not only in ISM but also in
Monitoring, Configuration Manager, etc.
After long reading of all announcement letters issued by IBM on 9.04 I
still got not answer. The
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 d
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
Based on some comments I heard recently, nothing has been done to DB backup
performance since ADSM V2.
-Original Message-
From: Darrel Gleddie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TSM database maximum recommended size
Comment
17 matches
Mail list logo
