évrier 2018 10:40:02
Objet: Re: [ADSM-L] No more client sessions after server upgrade.
Hi Eric,
The default certificate (indicated by a * on the left) on older version is
MD5-signed. TLS 1.2 need a SHA-signed certificatee to be the default.
The update/upgrade process should change the defaul
iles\Common
Files\Tivoli\TSM\api64\gsk8\lib64:C:\Program Files\Common
Files\Tivoli\TSM\api64\gsk8\bin:%PATH%
--
Best regards / Cordialement / مع تحياتي
Erwann SIMON
- Mail original -
De: "Eric van Loon (ITOPT3) - KLM"
À: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Envoyé: Vendredi 9 Février 2018 09:
Hi guys,
To answer my own question so everybody else will be able to find it though
ADSM-L. The solution was to generate a new certificate. During server startup I
noticed the following message:
ANR3336W Default certificate labeled TSM Server SelfSigned Key in key data base
is down level.
The
é: Mardi 6 Février 2018 11:08:37
Objet: Re: [ADSM-L] No more client sessions after server upgrade.
Hi Zoltan,
The server is a Linux box, but the client is Windows...
Kind regards,
Eric van Loon
Air France/KLM Storage Engineering
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mai
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: No more client sessions after server upgrade.
If this is a Linux box, did you run the utility to convert the cert/keys file?
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.0/srv.admin/t_ssl_config_ca.html
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3
If this is a Linux box, did you run the utility to convert the cert/keys
file?
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.0/srv.admin/t_ssl_config_ca.html
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM <
eric-van.l...@klm.com> wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I just upgraded
Hi guys!
I just upgraded our engineering server from 7.1.7 to 7.1.8 and clients cannot
connect anymore. The only session that is working is the one from the server
itself. I opened an admin console through it and when I try to establish and
admins session from my pc, it's rejected with the mess
Among places like
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7_7.1.1/com.ibm.itsm.srv.doc/t_simulwrite_client_mountpts.html
"A client session requires a mount point to store data to a
sequential-access storage pool." DP is random access.
2016-09-07 15:35 GMT+02:00 Zoltan Forray :
> On Wed
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Karel Bos wrote:
> maxnummp is ignored when going to random access storage like disk pool.
>
Say what? Where is that documented? From the book:
*Server settings take precedence over client settings. If the client
resourceutilization option value exceeds the val
m
> >
> > IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
> > Product support:
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/
> > tivoli_storage_manager
> >
> > Online documentation:
> > http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/
> > landing/welcome
> >
> > >
> > > Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | stor...@us.ibm.com
> > >
> > > IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
> > > Product support:
> > > https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/
> > >
> Date: 2016-09-07 08:29
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> But my point is that the user is getting whatever they set for
> RESOURCEUTILIZATION vs what I set for MAXNUMPOINT, without the noise.
This
>
ote on 2016-09-01
> 08:40:33:
>
> > From: Zoltan Forray
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
> >
> > Thanks for the info. Yes the user does(did
08:40:33:
> From: Zoltan Forray
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 2016-09-01 08:43
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> Thanks for the info. Yes the user does(did) have RESOURCEUTILIZATION 4
> configured.
>
> I no
y/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%
> 20Storage%20Manager
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" wrote on 2016-08-31
> 17:22:19:
>
> > From: Karel Bos
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> > Sent by: &
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: *EXTERNAL* Extra client sessions
We are occasionally seeing some odd behavior in our TSM environment.
We write incoming client files to sequential disk storage pools. Almost all of
our client nodes use the default maxnummp value of 1.
When the odd behavior occurs, a
DSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 2016-08-31 17:23
> Subject: Re: Extra client sessions
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> Might want to check resourceutil settings as that limits the number of
> sessions clients try to setup. It should match maxnummp or be lower.
>
&g
Might want to check resourceutil settings as that limits the number of
sessions clients try to setup. It should match maxnummp or be lower.
Op 31 aug. 2016 22:21 schreef "Zoltan Forray" :
> AHA - so I am not loosing my mind (at least in this situation). I too have
> been seeing clients getting >
AHA - so I am not loosing my mind (at least in this situation). I too have
been seeing clients getting >3-sessions eventhough the NODE maxnumpoints is
1! I was always under the impression that maxnumpoints trumps
resourceutilization.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Denier
wrote:
> We a
We are occasionally seeing some odd behavior in our TSM environment.
We write incoming client files to sequential disk storage pools. Almost all of
our client nodes use the default maxnummp value of 1.
When the odd behavior occurs, a number of clients will go through the following
sequence of e
We have a 5.1.7.2 TSM server running under OS/390 2.9. We have seen
a rather peculiar problem several times in the last few weeks. The
problem was discovered when I checked on the status of TSM early in
the morning. In each case there were a number of clients with more
sessions than usual. Some of
, our suspicion lies with the network.
However, on the TSM server, there are two client sessions 'stuck' in
Run-state:
Sess Comm. Sess Wait Bytes Bytes Sess Platform Client Name
Number Method StateTimeSent
Thank you for the advice.
--- Francisco Molero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi
Douglas,
> In Solaris you can get better performance if you use
> raw devices for DB, LOG and diskpools.
>
>
> > My organization recently migrated a 45GB TSM 5.1.5
> > database from an old AIX platform to a Sun V880
>
Hi Douglas,
In Solaris you can get better performance if you use
raw devices for DB, LOG and diskpools.
> My organization recently migrated a 45GB TSM 5.1.5
> database from an old AIX platform to a Sun V880
> running Solaris 8. The migration of the database was
> done by using "dsmserv restore db
Synopsis: Performed unsupported, undefined cross-platform restoral of the
critical TSM component, its database, and now having odd problems.
The Year of Living Dangerously. That was the kind of posting we hope we
never see on the List. And if the executives of the companies where such
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Slow client sessions
My organization recently migrated a 45GB TSM 5.1.5
database from an old AIX platform to a Sun V880
running Solaris 8. The migration of the database was
done by using "dsmserv restore db" as the export
fa
My organization recently migrated a 45GB TSM 5.1.5
database from an old AIX platform to a Sun V880
running Solaris 8. The migration of the database was
done by using "dsmserv restore db" as the export
failed on varios errors. A db audit was never
performed because of the downtime involved - days,
w
Everyone,
I have TSM Server on Win2000 Server. Clients are both MAC and PC. I seem to be having
a problem with the client sessions. When the Scheduler prompts the Clients to start a
backup, the client starts 3 sessions with the Server. If anyone can explain why 3
sessions startup instead of
28 matches
Mail list logo
