Tsm server 5.2.7.1
Tsm client 5.3.4.0
Client on windows 2003 r2 sp2 x64
Tdp 5.3.3.0
Sql 2005
Anyone know what these error messages mean? Our dba's moved a db from a
sql2000 to a sql2005 server over the weekend, now my clone script for
creating a data warehouse copy wont work. The restore
Sorry - hit send before I finished the subject earlier
Tsm server 5.2.7.1
Tsm client 5.3.4.0
Client on windows 2003 r2 sp2 x64
Tdp 5.3.3.0
Sql 2005
Anyone know what these error messages mean? Our dba's moved a db from a
sql2000 to a sql2005 server over the weekend, now my clone script
Hi All,
I have a situation where previously my tape library was full (slot free
hell) and I was having to check out volumes that were in the copystgpool
so that I could make way for scratch tapes. Then the whole manual
procedure of getting the tapes back to scratch once they had been
recovered
Hi *SM-ers!
I found something very strange on one of my TSM servers.
When I issue the following command:
select stgpool_name as Storagepool,sum(physical_mb) as MB from
occupancy group by stgpool_name
I recieve the following output:
Storagepool MB
--
Shove the tapes into the library directly.
Run
checkin libv library search=yes status=private checkl=barcode
update volume * wherestg=copypool access=readwrite
The last line assumes you've put all copypool volumes into the library.
There you go.
--
Mark Stapleton
Berbee (a
Hi all,
We are getting an error on one of our TSM clients that does not want to back
up the ASR information.
Client OS: Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition Service Pack 1
Client TSM: 5.3.4.0
Error in dsmerror.log
12/10/2007 21:54:30 ANS1228E Sending of object 'C:' failed
12/10/2007
Hi All,
Just to let you know. I've tested this:
- Made a DBB to a FILECLASS on a Windows TSM 5.4.
- Installed a RHEL5 VM with TSM 5.5.
- FTP-ed the .dbb to the VM.
- Did a ./dsmserv restore db dev=dbbackup file=name.dbb.
- Did a ./dsmserv upgradedb afterwards (because the Windows TSM was 5.4).
-
Hi
My theory works if the following is true.
1) the copy pool is offsite.
2) your statement that the copy pool is larger than the primary pool was
incorrect. Its the other way round looing at the numbers given.
Original sizings
Storagepool MB
--
I don't know how it fixes it, but I know I had the same problem, folllowed the
instructions for the recommended fix, and I no longer receive the error.
- Original Message -
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Sent: Tue Dec 11
Presumably displaying the faulty multi_sz value strips out anything that
shouldn't be there and hitting OK commits the stripped values back into the
registry. If you cancelled, the stripped values would not be written back.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL
Thanks to all the responses.
I should have known..basically more Windows black magic going on
behind the scenes without the users knowledge
Angus Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
12/11/2007 09:40 AM
Please respond to
ADSM: Dist Stor
It would have been nice to include this info in the doc (note: When you
click OK, the regedit program will automatically correct this registry key
by adding the missing x value to the key).
Thanks, again.
Andrew Raibeck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
You aren’t visibly changing anything, but behind the scenes regedit is
placing another needful character (newline?) that was missed the first time
Steve Schaub
Systems Engineer, WNI
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
423-535-6574 (desk)
423-785-7347 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: ADSM:
An earlier revision of this document actually had you manually add the
extra x'' value, but it turns out to be unnecessary. The document has
since been revised with the simpler steps you cite below. When you click
OK, Regedit automatically corrects the value so that it is properly
terminated.
Avy, it could be something like:
select date(start_time) date,schedule_name schedule,entity node,(end_time -
start_time) duration from summary where end_time = current_timestamp - 5
days and activity='BACKUP' and schedule_name='DRP_DAILY_INC_UNIX' order by
3,4
Change my schedule_name
Zoltan, read the IBM SWG note you pointed at below. It explained why the fix
works.
--
Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 8:32 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L]
Francesco Puccioni
Cabel Industry s.r.l
via Cherubini 99 , 50053
Empoli , Firenze.
tel 0571 5331253
fax 0571 993773
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm trying to figure out when the permission of certain files changed. I
ran a few tests, and I'm not sure I like the behavior of TSM. Maybe I'm
missing something.
- I backed up a file a month ago.
- The file hasn't changed for a month
- Today I changed the permission from 644 to 444.
- I ran
Hi Jim!
My copy pool is an online copy pool. Tapes (in fact virtual tapes) are
not checked out, nor removed from the (virtual) library.
I didn't state that my copy pool is larger than the primary pool (hence
my line although the copy pool (DL_LBU3_CPY_1) contains less data, it
uses more tapes!!!)
Wladimir Benavides
Binaria Sistemas
Av. 12 de Octubre y Cordero
Quito, Ecuador
tel 59322550535
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
El servicio de Symantec Hosted Mail Security ha verificado que el mensaje se
encuentra libre de Virus.
Ok, let's just admit it right now - I'm lazy.
Because of that, I hate the complexity of configuring TSM to backup my
MS Clusters (I also hate MS Clusters, but that's a discussion for
another day).
Can someone explain to me why I cant just do the following instead
(since the following is
I would say it is normal to have a little more data in the primary pool
due to on-going backups. We have backups running all the time.
Since the primary and copy tapes are created differently I am not
surprised that there is a different number of tapes. Has there always
been more copy than
Hi,
ok. I should have said that the copy pool is defined on a server to server
connection. So the server that creates the copy pool has volumes named
nodename.BFS.xxx and the destination server has 3590 volumes.
So far I have deleted the 3590 volume no. 1234567 from the destination server
Hi Richard,
I belive you when you say it works but it is not a suppported way to
migrate cross platforms. If support havent changed drasticly without a
notice..
//Henrik
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard van Denzel
Sent: 11.
I run a TSM 5.3.4.0 TSM server. I recently encounterered a problem where the
5.3.4.0 linux TSM client aborted every time it processed a given file system
on one of my servers.
Instead of upgrading to a newer 5.3.4 client level as would probably have
been the wisest thing to to, I promptly
Eric,
I'm interested in learning more about the particulars of your environment.
We have been experiencing some odd behavior with our tape pools after
recently upgrading the TSM server to 5.4.0 and the Clients (Windows and
Unix) to 5.4.1 clients. We also have a primary tape pool library with a
On Dec 11, 2007 2:17 PM, Richard van Denzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Just to let you know. I've tested this:
- Made a DBB to a FILECLASS on a Windows TSM 5.4.
- Installed a RHEL5 VM with TSM 5.5.
- FTP-ed the .dbb to the VM.
- Did a ./dsmserv restore db dev=dbbackup file=name.dbb.
hmm I have not explored this area of server to server copypools.. Hope that
someone else would be in better position.. ! I guess Michael.
Sadat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
ok. I should have said that the copy pool is defined on a server to server
connection. So the server that creates
28 matches
Mail list logo
