I've used the export to another server solution, but this last event was the
most troublesome.
Five very large nodes, it took nearly a week to export one of them.
Complicated by the impact on storage resources. (That's another battle I'm
fighting at the moment.)
Thus, my comment in the RFE
Rick,
Your note reminded me that I left out a couple of steps in my description of
what we do. We also change the nodename on the node as it is exported to the
other server. We don't suspend expiration while the export is running.
Instead, we change it's domain on the original server while
On 05/07/2013 04:32 PM, Skylar Thompson wrote:
We now have moved to a model where the unit generating the
backup/archive usage is charged per byte per year via a cost center.
We've got a very similar structure here at UF, with the addition that
there are local admins designated for each (most)
We've offered labs policy authority, although so far they're all happy
letting us suffer with managing the entire thing. :P
-- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School
I found a shortcut on my RFE to share with anyone as a quick way to find it.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfeCR_ID=33395
The link will take you through the DeveloperWorks sign-in process; if you don't
have a sign-in, see the links on the page to obtain one.
On 05/08/2013 09:40 AM, Skylar Thompson wrote:
We've offered labs policy authority, although so far they're all happy
letting us suffer with managing the entire thing. :P
Heh. Well, we've been doing one variation or another on this service
for more than 10 years, so I've had training time.
So I've got a customer who's using the SCO client; he's doing DR
testing (yay!) and has encountered a file he doesn't seem to be able to
restore.
ANR8216W Error sending data on socket 44. Reason 32. (SESSION: 365755)
which smells of network problems, but he can restore lots of other stuff.
Agreed. No reason to create different domains due to platform, TSM doesn't
care.
I always tell my new customers to stick with minimal domains until they have a
reason to add more. Start simple. It's easier to get more complex later, not
as easy to merge/simplify.
The primary reasons to
Just my 2 cents :)
One of my TSM worlds consists of several TSM servers and roughly 900 clients
(mix of BA, TDP, etc.).
When the time came for an upgrade the original system was configured where
domains and storage boundries were designed by platform.
My management team asked the question why
Just want to clarify something for people who haven't dealt with this before.
It depends on what you mean when you say stop expiration.
Suppose you have the copy group limit set to 30 versions.
If the client is still backing up, the 31st version will still roll off and be
not-restorable, no
I find that shocking.
Changing domain structure shouldn't do that.
Did you open a performance PMR, or get any feedback from Tivoli?
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick
Adamson
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:34 AM
To:
Good points, Wanda. Just to clarify, this is the definition for our PRESERVE
domain (what I had been calling LITHOLD earlier):
tsm: ADSM6q copy preserve
PolicyPolicyMgmt Copy Versions Versions Retain Retain
DomainSet Name Class Group Data DataExtra
Ah, it appears I miss-understood EXACTLY what happens in expiration.
The intent of a litigation is, in my case, to satisfy the instruction from
legal that says: 'keep everything'. That would include versions and days to
retain files going on for an extended time.
So, Wanda, you've blown my
On the point by Wanda regarding when files are lost.
I was just visiting with one of my co-workers that built our original TSM
environment several years ago; IBM was here to help.
It was observed that storage capacity was filling quickly, even though policy
was set to a few versions and some
I believe the TSM client enforces the # of versions limit specified in the
management class, but not the retention attributes (# of days to keep inactive
versions). Only the TSM Expiration process will purge inactive objects when
they reach their Retain limits (retextra, retonly). If your
We're clearly deep into the mire of exactly how TSM works.
But, it the Developers pick up this request, they'll figure something out;
either for Client Backup or Expire, or both.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul
Zarnowski
Hi Wanda,
Note that in my situation not only were domains combined, but also storage
pools.
Combining the domains resulted in more clients utilizing the same disk,
primary, and copy pools, which ultimately increased the time needed to migrate,
backup, and reclaim specific pools. The end result
FWIW, here's the characteristics we use to split up our storage pools:
* Backup vs archive - we segregate archives from backups since their
retention (and subsequent reclamation) is so much longer than backups
* Library - obviously we need to have separate storage pool hierarchies
for separate
Hi Guys
I had an environment of backup for a TDP for mail working correctly.
Tsm Client 6.2.3.1
Tsm STA 5.5.5.1
Tsm for Mail 6.1.3.2
Tsm Server6.3.3.100
I upgrade my Tsm client to the version 6.4 and now I got this error:
05/08/2013 09:41:20 ANS1025E Session rejected:
19 matches
Mail list logo
