Wanda,
Powershell 3.0 is mentioned under the additional Microsoft prerequisites
part.
Op 21 mei 2014 05:08 schreef Prather, Wanda wanda.prat...@icfi.com:
TDP for mail is at 6.4, Exchange 2010.
Ran install of 7.1 on top, then ran setupfcm.exe.
Started DP for Exchange, it immediately fails
PM:
From: Prather, Wanda wanda.prat...@icfi.com
To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
Date: 05/20/2014 11:08 PM
Subject: TDP mail upgrd from 6.4 to 7.1 - Windows Powershell 3.0
requirement?
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
TDP for mail is at 6.4, Exchange 2010.
Ran install of 7.1
requirement?
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
TDP for mail is at 6.4, Exchange 2010.
Ran install of 7.1 on top, then ran setupfcm.exe.
Started DP for Exchange, it immediately fails with FMM50009E, says
Windows Powershell 3.0 is a pre-req.
Nothing about this in the planning
Thank you Angela!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Angela
Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:24 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TDP mail upgrd from 6.4 to 7.1 - Windows Powershell 3.0
requirement?
Hi
TDP for mail is at 6.4, Exchange 2010.
Ran install of 7.1 on top, then ran setupfcm.exe.
Started DP for Exchange, it immediately fails with FMM50009E, says Windows
Powershell 3.0 is a pre-req.
Nothing about this in the planning prereqs section of the TDP 7.1 install
guide.
Is there any impact
Does anyone know if this requirement (ref
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21399352 ) still exists
with v6.2.1? The volume history gets written out to the volume history file
with every update/change of the volume history. The Maintenance Plan of the
AdminCenter does not create
We have a client with a couple old Netware 4.11 servers running TSM client
4.2.3.0. These nodes will be retired and the hardware
will go away. But there is a requirement to keep the data for possible future
restores. We were thinking of installing a newer
version of Netware as a VMware virtual
have a client with a couple old Netware 4.11 servers running TSM client
4.2.3.0. These nodes will be retired and the hardware
will go away. But there is a requirement to keep the data for possible future
restores. We were thinking of installing a newer
version of Netware as a VMware virtual
Hello *SMlers,
yesterday i was faced with a requirement that i don't know how to
handle.
We are in the need to back up a bunch of files (approx. between 5
and 15 GBytes/day) for 50 days after hey where created on the
underlying file system.
Problem: each file may stay for up to 50 days
@VM.MARIST.EDU wrote on 2006-01-11
01:00:12:
Hello *SMlers,
yesterday i was faced with a requirement that i don't know how to
handle.
We are in the need to back up a bunch of files (approx. between 5
and 15 GBytes/day) for 50 days after hey where created on the
underlying file system.
Problem
Engineer, WNI
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
423-752-6574 (desk)
423-785-7347 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Andrew Raibeck
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:38 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] A requirement
: [ADSM-L] A requirement ..
Why won't these backup copygroup settings work?
VEREXISTS=NOLIMIT
VERDELETED=NOLIMIT
RETEXTRA=50
RETONLY=50
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew
Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL PROTECTED
1. Files a, b, c are all created backed up on day 1
2. File a gets deleted on day 5
3. File b gets deleted on day 25
4. File c gets deleted on day 49
They want a, b, c all to expire from TSM on day 50, regardless of when
they were deleted (which as far as I can see, can only be
David Sniper Rigaudiere wrote:
1. Files a, b, c are all created backed up on day 1
2. File a gets deleted on day 5
3. File b gets deleted on day 25
4. File c gets deleted on day 49
They want a, b, c all to expire from TSM on day 50, regardless of when
they were deleted (which as far as I can
Hi Steve,
Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2006 15:30 schrieb Schaub, Steve:
Perhaps I misunderstood Guenther's need, but I interpreted the
scenario to be like this:
1. Files a, b, c are all created backed up on day 1
2. File a gets deleted on day 5
3. File b gets deleted on day 25
4. File c gets
I am running TSM Server 5.1.8.0 on Win2K Server with an Overland Neo4100
LTO2 tape library. I have a tape storage pool that is used for weekly
arhives by one system (direct to tape.) Once an archive is done, I
update the volumes to ACCESS=READONLY. I then CHECKOUT the volumes to
hold offsite.
Hi,
We have some urgent requirement for
TAM and TIM Architects.
These are contract positions for a duration of 9-12 months in NJ,
Chicago and Texas
Please send Resume, contact details and per hour rate.
Thanks
http://www.db-solution.com http://www.db-solution.com
Can you contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your specific
requirements please.
Thanks,
Mooney
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ari Banerjee
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Urgent Requirement
Not Quite! This used to be true before 4.2.2.0, not any longer. They must
match right down to the patch level. I was bitten by 4.2.2.12 and 4.2.2.13.
However, TSM Development is promising to make this issue go away.
Hopefully, in V5.2. You will have to upgrade all at once then, probably,
but
: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30.08.2002 02:50
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Requirement for licence data collection
Hi All,
I'm just going through a painful licence data collection exercise. I have
some 80
IBM is asking us to install a new patch but is requiring us to be at a base
level that we are beyond, which in itself shouldn't be a problem, but our
level is actually beyond where the patch is going to take us.
Is this going to be safe to install?
Our server is at Storage Management Server for
/2002
11:20:07 AM
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Patch base level requirement question
IBM is asking us to install a new patch but is requiring us to be at a base
level
: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Patch base level requirement question
IBM is asking us to install a new patch but is requiring us to be at a base
level that we are beyond, which in itself shouldn't be a problem, but our
level is actually beyond where the patch
suggest that there is a requirement for
1. a data collection mechanism to return to the TSM server the number of CPUs and
other relevent licencing information on a regular basis. This information should
include the system serial number where this is available, or some sort of checksum
based
cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Tape LibraryCapacity Requirement. Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU
Please help me to calculate the require capacity of the tape library. I
have 3.7 TB of data and 4 versions of Archive (with 30 days retention
period) and 1 version of backup (full backup) will be implemented.
How can i calculate the required capacity?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Zosi
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tape Library Capacity Requirement.
Hi
It sounds like you're going to use a full backup software such as Legato.
However, I will do my estimates based on TSM, which uses incremental
backups, and version
friend.
Good enough is the enemy of excellence.
Seay, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/19/2001 17:21
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Future Share Requirement: W2K 4.2.1
YEP you do. And it gets worse with Active Directory. But, Tivoli is not
the folks that say mailbox recovery products are bad. Microsoft says so.
Until they provide the proper API, nothing will likely happen in TSM. The
interface that some vendors are using to do this requires that you backup
Thanks for the response.
I plan to submit a requirement Share to make this work. I will explain why.
Coming from a mainframe background, we do not change configuration
parameters on the fly to direct software. We typically use command
overrides. So the requirement would be for the client node
Seay,
is -selective backup not doing exactly what you want to achieve with
mode=absolute ?
best regards
Juraj Salak
-Original Message-
From: Seay, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Future Share Requirement: W2K 4.2.1
PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/18/2001 22:51
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Future Share Requirement: W2K 4.2.1 Desktop Archive Client
backsup
files that are unmodified
Requirement: W2K 4.2.1 Desktop Archive Client
backs up files that are unmodified
As a former customer and MVS storage administrator myself, I certainly
wouldn't want my users modifying SMS policies, either directly or
indirectly. In the same fashion, I wouldn't want them modifying my TSM
policies. Allowing
Does Tivoli Space Manager for 4.1 have the same
requirement as HSM v3 in reqards to where a file has
to sit unmolested for 24 hrs before it is eligible to
be migrated?
And - is there a Tivoli Space Manager manual out there
anywhere? I've checked the on-line Tivoli Redbooks
page, I see some TSM
34 matches
Mail list logo
