Re: Some DISK volumes will not mount.

34 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Some DISK volumes will not mount. Richard, You are correct. The db2 database within TSM sees them but they are not there on /mnt/ddstgpool3 mount. The good part is I now know what the problem is, the bad part is im going to have find out h

Re: Some DISK volumes will not mount.

> > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > Richard Cowen > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:53 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Some DISK volumes will not mount. > > Ricky, > Can y

Re: Some DISK volumes will not mount.

te it. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Cowen Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:53 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Some DISK volumes will not mount. Ricky, Can you see the volume from the linux server?

Re: Some DISK volumes will not mount.

ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Some DISK volumes will not mount. Has anybody had this problem, I hope someone has an answer, I'm dying here trying to figure this out. ANR1893E Process 288 for SPACE RECLAMATION completed with a completion state of FAILURE. ANR1401W Mount request

Some DISK volumes will not mount.

Has anybody had this problem, I hope someone has an answer, I'm dying here trying to figure this out. ANR1893E Process 288 for SPACE RECLAMATION completed with a completion state of FAILURE. ANR1401W Mount request denied for volume /mnt/ddstgpool3/DA46.BFS - mount failed. My TSM server is r

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ryder, Michael S wrote: > if your files are all going to tape anyway, what was > the purpose for so many TB of disk pool? > Because the more I can keep on disk the less that goes to tape - another constrained resource. We have 7-TSM servers sharing 9-3592 tape dr

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Zoltan SO sorry, my original TSM reference was a hair stale -- try this one: https://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7_7.1.1/com.ibm.itsm.perf.doc/t_perf_diskos_lnx.html I understand you have constraints, so I am not telling you to do something you cannot do. What I am saying is - yo

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

I understand and we have been using ext4 since it was available. All of my stgpools are ext4. The DB filesystem is ext3 per the requirements in the document you referenced for setting up TSM on Linux. However, they are spread across 2-ext4 filesystems due to the 16TB limit for ext4. Are you say

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Hello Zoltan: I have about 500 volumes spread across a dozen or so EXT4 filesystems, and get performance that operates at the maximum throughput of the hardware. Here is a good primer on the differences. The bottom line - ext4 can perform better than ext3. http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/05/ex

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Mike, Thanks, again. Very helpful. So, did I understand your earlier statement/comment that you disagree with "*Set the LVM read-ahead to 0 for all logical volumes on disk systems that provide adaptive read-ahead capabilities, for example, enterprise-type disk systems.*" I also read the stateme

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Hi Zoltan Here is the reference... I know it is for TSM 7.1, but the reference is specific to RHEL and it's filesystems, which is still relevant to the discussion, I think: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7_7.1.0/com.ibm.itsm.perf.doc/t_perf_diskos_lnx.html Best regards, Mike

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ryder, Michael S < michael_s.ry...@roche.com> wrote: > Did you follow the docs and disable RHEL's read-ahead > caching? If so, you may want to consider enabling it. > Mike, Can you expand on your statement about RHEL read-ahead cache and some tuning/config docu

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Andy, Thanks for the information. It sounds like you are sort-of agreeing that having too many TSM disk volumes is a factor in my slowness (i.e. 30-1TB volumes is bad since I have them all in one array so reducing to fewer, larger TSM volumes per array could help.) I agree SSD would help but we

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

RAID group and are writing to more than 1 tape drive you cause random seeks which slow down the throughput of the RAID group. When TSM writes to a disk pool it writes each session sequentially, but when there is more than 1 session it appears random to the RAID group. When I build disk volumes I

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

nessee > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > Skylar Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 11:07 AM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] When can too many disk volumes be detrimental >

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 11:07 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] When can too many disk volumes be detrimental I would actually keep DB and logs separate, avoid putting the DB on RAID-5

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

I would actually keep DB and logs separate, avoid putting the DB on RAID-5 due to its high write penalty. We have our DB on 15K RPM SAS disks in 3x 4-disk RAID-10 sets. The logs we keep on RAID-1 collocated with the OS, since it's pretty low load and all sequential I/O. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ryder, Michael S < michael_s.ry...@roche.com> wrote: > Are you using TDP for Virtual Environments for block-level image backups? > Do you have deduplication enabled? Both features will grind away at your > log filesystems. In my case enabling those features trip

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

Hi Zoltan, We too have seen poor performance on random access DISK volumes where multiple volumes are on the same underlying RAID set. A few things I've noticed: * TSM is ignorant of the underlying filesystem structure. This means it will write new data and migrate/backup old data fro

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

gt; > Keep us posted. I have had similar problems in the past year or so. > > > Only, I can't get any new hardware. > > > > > > Still using hp 585 servers with 4 amd processors. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- &

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

sors. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > > Zoltan Forray > > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:56 PM > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: [ADSM-L] When can too ma

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

gt; To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: [ADSM-L] When can too many disk volumes be detrimental > > RedHat Linux 6.7 with TSM 6.3.5.100 > > Back in the "good old days" of ADSM/TSM, I was always taught that the more > TSM disk volumes you had, the better since TSM would s

Re: When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

nuary 26, 2016 3:56 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] When can too many disk volumes be detrimental RedHat Linux 6.7 with TSM 6.3.5.100 Back in the "good old days" of ADSM/TSM, I was always taught that the more TSM disk volumes you had, the better since TSM would spread the I

When can too many disk volumes be detrimental

RedHat Linux 6.7 with TSM 6.3.5.100 Back in the "good old days" of ADSM/TSM, I was always taught that the more TSM disk volumes you had, the better since TSM would spread the I/O's across the volumes in a somewhat balanced manner, to improve performance. Yes I realize this wa

Re: RE : [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many?

y.vcu.edu/phishing.html From: molin gregory To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 02/21/2011 04:23 AM Subject: [ADSM-L] RE : [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Hello Zoltan, First is to know if this volumes are for sequential or random access. I

RE : [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many?

Forray/AC/VCU [zfor...@vcu.edu] Date d'envoi : jeudi 17 février 2011 19:15 À : ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Objet : [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many? I am aware of the TSM design that says the more disk volumes you have, the more it will spread out the I/O for better performance. I

Re: How many disk volumes are too many?

orage pool volumes. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Clark Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:43 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many? Hi Zoltan, First group of questions:

Re: How many disk volumes are too many?

meone inherits your environment down the road? [RC] From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 02/17/2011 10:13 AM Subject: [ADSM-L] How many disk volumes are too many? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" I am aware of the TSM design that says the more disk volumes you ha

How many disk volumes are too many?

I am aware of the TSM design that says the more disk volumes you have, the more it will spread out the I/O for better performance. I also realize a lot of this doesn't really apply what with RAID-5, EMC SAN, multi-terabyte storage, etc. So, at what point does having lots of smaller volumes

Re: TSM and disk volumes of more than 1 TB...

y, 26 January, 2007 17:52 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: TSM and disk volumes of more than 1 TB... Hi everyone, Did anyone know if TSM could hold disk volumes of 1TB or more for a disk STGPOOL ¿? Thanks in advance, Ibán Bernaldo de Quirós Technical Specialist

TSM and disk volumes of more than 1 TB...

Hi everyone, Did anyone know if TSM could hold disk volumes of 1TB or more for a disk STGPOOL ¿? Thanks in advance, Ibán Bernaldo de Quirós Technical Specialist

Re: tsm disk volumes for db and log

Huh? Have as many dbvols as you need! You're going to be running for a LOT longer than you are going to be restarting, and you want it to run as fast as possible. TSM is really quite stable, so optimize it for faster running, not for faster restart and recovery. So what if it takes a couple minutes

Re: tsm disk volumes for db and log

>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:39:08 +0100, Dierk Harbort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I am working on a new design of our tsm environment - a lot of changes in > sight this year. So here a litte question to check my ideas for the new > design: > IBM support told me, that it would be the best to have

tsm disk volumes for db and log

Hello all! I am working on a new design of our tsm environment - a lot of changes in sight this year. So here a litte question to check my ideas for the new design: IBM support told me, that it would be the best to have not more than about 6-8 diskvolumes for the tsm database, due to the recovery

Re: TSM Disk Volumes

<[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> Subject Re: [ADSM-L] TSM Disk Volumes

Re: TSM Disk Volumes

On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Richard Rhodes wrote: (I did a classic "rm *" in the wrong telnet session on my pc, pounded ctrl-c real fast, hung onto my seat, looked around, and, found half of the db files gone. Interestingly, the db ran just fine for an hour while we prepared the restore/ reco

Re: TSM Disk Volumes

<[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> Subject Re: TSM Disk Volumes 02/22/2006 05:12 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EM

Re: TSM Disk Volumes

>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:28:30 -1000, Aaron Becar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Just a quick question. Has anyone every had TSM disk volumes just > disappear on them? For example if you do a listing of the files where > the volumes should be there is nothing there? Thanks!

Re: TSM Disk Volumes

Just a quick question. Has anyone every had TSM disk volumes just disappear on them? For example if you do a listing of the files where the volumes should be there is nothing there? Thanks! Aaron

Re: Recreating disk volumes on DR TSM system

.MARIST.EDU Dist Stor cc Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU> Recreating disk volumes on DR TSM

Recreating disk volumes on DR TSM system

We are in the process of testing a DR TSM server. One of the 1st things I've noticed was that after the recovery of the databse to an alternate TSM server that the server comes up and marks on disk based volumes offline. - If you do a delete vol discard=yes all goes fine but when you go to do a de

Re: Disk volumes

gt; 26.09.2002 20:51 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Disk volumes ... We then gave TSM the raw slices /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 so he saw 6x36. This was the fastest by far. We were able to max

Re: Disk volumes

TECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 27.09.2002 00:35 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Disk volumes Ours are SCSI-attached external subsystem (2104). Wow...

Re: Disk volumes

Mahesh Tailor wrote: >Hello, > >TSM: 5.1.1.6 >OS: AIX 4.3.3 >Machine: IBM 6M1 > >Hopefully this is a simple question: I have fourteen 36GB drives that >are available for the diskpool and I was wondering whether it is better >to have seven 5GB files or three 10GB files or one 35GB file or >somet

Re: Disk volumes

c. 757-688-8180 -Original Message- From: Mahesh Tailor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disk volumes Hello, TSM: 5.1.1.6 OS: AIX 4.3.3 Machine: IBM 6M1 Hopefully this is a simple question: I have fourteen 36GB drives tha

Re: Disk volumes

-Original Message- From: Mahesh Tailor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disk volumes Hello, TSM: 5.1.1.6 OS: AIX 4.3.3 Machine: IBM 6M1 Hopefully this is a simple question: I have fourteen 36GB drives that are available for

Re: Disk volumes

some more. But, maybe this will kindle some ideas from others. Paul D. Seay, Jr. Technical Specialist Naptheon Inc. 757-688-8180 -Original Message- From: Johnn D. Tan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disk volumes

Re: Disk volumes

48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Disk volumes On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Johnn D. Tan wrote: > Ours are SCSI-attached external subsystem (2104). Wow... from 1 > MB/min to 20 MB/sec! We are definitely going to investigate raw > devices! wait this did not just come from moving to

Re: Disk volumes

as also the cause for the low performance .. > > > >-Chetan > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Johnn D. Tan wrote: > > > >> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:42:45 -0400 > >> From: Johnn D. Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >&g

Re: Disk volumes

Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Disk volumes >> >> I have 12 36-GB drives available for spool. >> >> Based on recommendations made to thi

Re: Disk volumes

hu, 26 Sep 2002 12:42:45 -0400 > From: Johnn D. Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Disk volumes > > I have 12 36-GB drives available for spool. > > Based on recom

Re: Disk volumes

John, Overall, the biggest gain in performance we got was changing the DB to use a raw slice instead of disk file (it even sped up the responsiveness of the web interface). We then tell TSM to mirror the DB with another raw slice. We've done this for the recovery log as well with it set

Re: Disk volumes

Thanks Scott. Hmm, never saw anyone else mention this, though I've been on the list for about a year. (Though, given the volume of this list, I definitely could've missed some mails.) Well, we are planning to move to new hardware and to TSM 5.1.1.x, so I guess that's as good a time as any to try

Re: Disk volumes

John, We just when through setting up our disk staging pool with TSM 5.1 on Solaris 8. We had 6x36G to work with. The initial config used large files on the filesystem. This is incredibly slow. We then configured Disk Suite to mirror the disks and we configured TSM to u

Re: Disk volumes

I have 12 36-GB drives available for spool. Based on recommendations made to this list earlier this year, I went with 12 mirrored disk spools of 16 GB each (keep in mind disk overhead). As I understood it, the issue was you want many spools so that, as Allen mentioned, you can have many threads

Re: Disk volumes

=> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:54:01 -0400, Mahesh Tailor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hopefully this is a simple question: I have fourteen 36GB drives that are > available for the diskpool and I was wondering whether it is better to have > seven 5GB files or three 10GB files or one 35GB file or someth

Disk volumes

Hello, TSM: 5.1.1.6 OS: AIX 4.3.3 Machine: IBM 6M1 Hopefully this is a simple question: I have fourteen 36GB drives that are available for the diskpool and I was wondering whether it is better to have seven 5GB files or three 10GB files or one 35GB file or something else? The drives are mount

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

4 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array I'm curious if anyone feels that the new AIXDIRECTIO option in TSM 5.1 affects their opinions about how to utilize disk for storage pools. TSM 5.1 also has an Async I/O option (AIX). For more info, refer to <http

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

dnesday, May 29, 2002 3:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array > ... I rather NOT use RAID-5 for TSM disk pool volumes... Why pay the penalty for calc & writing parity when you don't expect to read it more than once?!? This data is so transient

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Dist Stor

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

gt; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Zlatko, > Write rate for RAID 5 is (note) again > N times faster than single disk speed but decreases with penalty for > recalculation if parity (highly controller dependent) Often this calcula

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

I'm curious if anyone feels that the new AIXDIRECTIO option in TSM 5.1 affects their opinions about how to utilize disk for storage pools. TSM 5.1 also has an Async I/O option (AIX). For more info, refer to , starting at about page 107. T

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

nation under same address -> support -> raid level description. regards Juraj -Original Message- From: Zlatko Krastev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Quick answer - only one

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

Quick answer - only one big volume. OK. I will start my thoughts on the subject with single drive example. Which is better for single drive - one volume occupying the whole disk or several files/raw devices defined as DISK volumes? Remember: disk devclass has nothing to do with mount points and

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

ECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Wanda has identified the critical choices; there is no single, right answer because the performance factors intersect at

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array I agree with Don, I prefer non-protected RAID-0 stripping for TSM disk pools. That is unless it a unique type of data that is not re-creatable such as backup logs. -- Joshua S. Bassi Sr. Solutions Architect @ rs-unix.com IBM Certified - AIX 4/5L, SAN

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

HACMP Tivoli Certified Consultant- ADSM/TSM Cell (415) 215-0326 -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don France Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Wanda has identified

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gerald Wichmann Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array That's more along the lines of what kind of info I'm digging for - but doesn't quite address how one goes about coming up with a

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

sday, May 28, 2002 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Well yes, it does matter. Trouble is, there is no "right" answer. It's a performance thing. Assuming you have multiple clients backing up concurrently to your disk pool, TSM will sta

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

=> On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:01:25 -0700, Gerald Wichmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Bottom line is I was just speculating out loud perhaps on whether there were > any pro's or con's to how many volumes and what size one would make the > volumes on a RAID5 array. Say you had a 100GB RAID5 array. Wo

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

e it's all just going into a big array? Regards, Gerald Wichmann Senior Systems Development Engineer Zantaz, Inc. 925.598.3099 (w) -----Original Message- From: Gianluca Perilli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volu

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

bject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Dist Stor

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

er Zantaz, Inc. 925.598.3099 (w) -Original Message- From: Gianluca Perilli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Hi Gerald, I think you have to consider that if you use RAID5 logical drives, yo

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

: "ADSM: Subject: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array Dist Stor Ma

Re: allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

You don't want to create one big RAID-5 disk. If you plan to have say 100GB disk pool, I would create say 10 RAID-5 disks - unless the number and size of disk you have means you need bigger Raid arrays. Also create filesystems on separate disks (UNIX system?) for disk pool vols. Reason is for b

allocating disk volumes on RAID5 array

Since a RAID-5 array shows up as one big filesystem, what's the best strategy for determining how many and of what size disk pool volumes to create for your primary disk storage pool? For the most part I don't think it really matters unlike allocating volumes on individual disks but perhaps I'm no

Re: Last write date for disk volumes

AIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Last write date for disk volumes I manage a 4.2.1.9 server running under OS/390. When I run a 'query volume' command against my disk storage pool volu

Re: Last write date for disk volumes

Tom, I am at the same level as you on OS/390 and get the same results, which is goodness. I think it is sloppy documentation. The online help and the pdf have all the fields filed in, such as %reclaimable, times_mounted, etc which make no sense for a random access volume. At 04:36 PM 5/2/2002 -

Last write date for disk volumes

I manage a 4.2.1.9 server running under OS/390. When I run a 'query volume' command against my disk storage pool volumes the 'Approx. Date Last Written' fields are blank. When I execute 'help q v' the online help includes sample output showing a last write date for a disk storage pool volume. Am I

Disk volumes with UNC

Hi *SM*ers I was looking documentation and I can not find answer for this question: is it supported to use UNC names for disk volumes in TSM server 4.2 on Windows? I do not have enough disk capacity on TSM server, so I would like to use disk from another Windows server. The problem with mapped

Re: OS/390 TSM usage of disk volumes

). So, when doing > migration from this pool to tape, it has to perform I/O's to 38 disk > volumes as well as the tapes. > > I am getting ready to more than double this pool. Does this mean that TSM > will scatter data across all 80+ volumes ? > > T

Re: OS/390 TSM usage of disk volumes

t; may contain information that is privileged and confidential. > > > -Original Message- > From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: jeudi, 13. septembre 2001 17:17 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OS/390 TSM usage of disk volumes > >

OS/390 TSM usage of disk volumes

quot; (i.e. data set) has something in it, rather than fill up one before going to another (this is a royal pain when trying to delete/add volumes, but that is a different story.). So, when doing migration from this pool to tape, it has to perform I/O's to 38 disk volumes as well as the tape

Re: Disk volumes varying themselves offline or to a readonly stat us b y themselves

, June 13, 2001 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disk volumes varying themselves offline or to a readonly status b y themselves I have recently implemented TSM v4.1.3 and have encountered a problem with my diskpool volumes. I currently have disk storage volumes in three locations: locally on

Disk volumes varying themselves offline or to a readonly status b y themselves

I have recently implemented TSM v4.1.3 and have encountered a problem with my diskpool volumes. I currently have disk storage volumes in three locations: locally on the TSM server, NAS (network attached storage device), and on another network server. What is happening is that the storage volumes