Re: SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Do, Those two packages install with the Client/Included with the Client? or are they installed separately? Regards On 10/4/2010 9:33 AM, Christian Svensson wrote: Hi Robert, I have been installing TSM 6.2.x.x on a couple of Linux systems with no problem. Does two packages you talking about

Re: No drives are currently available in library

What does the output of `Q PATH` look like? Is there anything in the activity log (`Q ACT`), around the time that you first encountered the problem, that indicates why they've gone from working to not working? /DMc -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager

Re: Looking for SAN/tape experts assistance

Thanks for the info and examples. However, I am at a loss to understand why I need this, now. Especially when 2-identical (well, I guess something is different ;--) servers are acting differently. I have never had to do this with *ANY* other of my now 7-servers. Unless hardware changed, a

Re: SV: SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Thanks Christian! Best Regards On 10/4/2010 9:53 AM, Christian Svensson wrote: Does two are 2 extra RPMs you need to install. But included in the TSM TAR file that you download from IBM. Best Regards Christian Svensson Cell: +46-70-325 1577 E-mail: christian.svens...@cristie.se Skype:

Re: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Since they are now a requirement, you don't have a choice. Lots of my Linux (RedHat) nodes have upgraded to this client level and I do not have any reports of problems. Zoltan Forray TSM Software Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services

Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

I want to test Tsm client version 6.2.1.0 on a client SLES 11sp1 64 bit , to make Tsm client working correctly I had to install too this two files: gskcrypt64-8.0.13.3.linux.x86_64.rpm gskssl64-8.0.13.3.linux.x86_64.rpm Did anyone know about any impact on the O.S after installing these two

Antwort: [ADSM-L] No drives are currently available in library

Hi David,, it seems, the paths to the drives are offline. Please, run q path and set paths online, if necessary. regards Ulli - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ullrich Mänz System-Integration FRITZ MACZIOL Software und

SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Hi Robert, I have been installing TSM 6.2.x.x on a couple of Linux systems with no problem. Does two packages you talking about are required for TSM encryption and also enable the SSL encryption option for TSM 6.2 in Linux. Best Regards Christian Svensson Cell: +46-70-325 1577 E-mail:

SV: SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Does two are 2 extra RPMs you need to install. But included in the TSM TAR file that you download from IBM. Best Regards Christian Svensson Cell: +46-70-325 1577 E-mail: christian.svens...@cristie.se Skype: cristie.christian.svensson Supported Platform for CPU2TSM::

backleveling: v5.5.4.0 - v5.5.2.1 ??

A couple weeks ago we upgraded our TSM library manager instances (two of them) from v5.5.2.1 to v5.5.4. Since then we have been getting SCSI RESERVATION problems (3592 in 3584, san attached with multiple tsm instances and storage agents). It's to the place we have to stop/start the library

No drives are currently available in library

Hi all, I have a problem in my TSM, I can't run a backup or a audit because give a error that drive are not available. For what I check they are available. Thanks for all the help you can give me. Error: tsm: TSMSRVAUDIT LIBR ts3200 ANS8003I Process number 13 started. actl 04-10-10

Re: SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

They are included in the package but installed separately , as I said the client worked only after I install them. Regards rOBERT -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Hughes Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:44 PM To:

Re: SV: Client 6.2.1.0 on Suse 11

Thanks Rob, I guess it's sorta like the AIX client when they started with having to install gsksa.rte and gskta.rte someone did tell me the packages will likely get more requirements as time goes on. Regards! On 10/4/2010 10:52 AM, Robert Ouzen wrote: They are included in the package but

Feature or bug?

Doing some server/node cleanup, I noticed an interesting anomaly caused by a server-to-server export. I consider it a bug. Curios on your opinions. This node was exported to a different server. The node contains Oracle filesystems named /u01, /u02, /u03 and /u04 I went to delete the target