Message-
From: Kevin Kettner
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 4:42 PM
To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
Subject: RE: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Thanks for the info!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Kevin Kettner
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Mai 2021 17:55
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
I wanted to send you guys an update on this issue. They have now
Thanks for the info!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 10:54 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Hi Kevin,
i got following Information
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 1:32 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
I received the information, that APAR IT36573 is NOT included in 8.1.12.
It is planned to include
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 1:32 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with
> dedup pool
>
> I received the information, that APAR IT36573 is NOT included in 8.1.12.
> It is planned to include that APAR in 8.1.12.100 .
Kettner
Sent: Dienstag, 27. April 2021 23:17
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
It's not on the fixes list for 8.1.12.000 so I guess that's probably a no.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6447173
-Original Message
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
It's not on the fixes list for 8.1.12.000 so I guess that's probably a no.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6447173
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Kettner
Sent: Tuesday
8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
That is related to APAR IT36573.
Michael already mentioned the eFix versions which provide a fix for that
"feature".
Regards, Uwe
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Michael Prix
Sent: Freitag, 23. April 2021 08:5
Does anyone know if this eFix is included in 8.1.12.000 that just came out?
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 2:12 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour
e: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Hello,
that feature is handled in eFix 8.1.11.101, contact IBM to get access to it.
It also affects 8.1.10.200 and is fixed in eFix 8.1.10.204.
--
Michael Prix
On 4/23/21 8:52 AM, Tsm Tsm wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
Hello,
that feature is handled in eFix 8.1.11.101, contact IBM to get access to it.
It also affects 8.1.10.200 and is fixed in eFix 8.1.10.204.
--
Michael Prix
On 4/23/21 8:52 AM, Tsm Tsm wrote:
Hello,
on my test servers if you move or defragment (automatic) containers the
spectrum protect
Hello,
on my test servers if you move or defragment (automatic) containers the
spectrum protect application crashes, DB2 service still alive.
ANR0984I Process 2 for Move Container (Automatic) started in the BACKGROUND
at 02:02:07.
ANR0984I Process 3 for Move Container (Automatic) started in the
: christian.svens...@cristie.se
Supported Platform for CPU2TSM::
http://www.cristie.se/cpu2tsm-supported-platforms
Från: Robert Ouzen [rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il]
Skickat: den 4 oktober 2011 19:48
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Strange behaviour...please Help
Hi all
Robert,
instead of trying
q vol 01L2 f=d
try the following:
q vol 01 f=d
i.e. WITHOUT the L2, i.e,. the 6 char Volser.
I assume the L2 seems to be the appended LTO-type
accordingly to Richard Sims' ADSM.Quickfacts with resp. to
LTO barcode format
Being retired
...@exist.se
http://www.existgruppen.se
Posthusgatan 1 761 30 NORRTÄLJE
-ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU skrev: -
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Från: Peter Dümpert
Sänt av: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
Datum: 10/05/2011 16:05
Ärende: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange behaviour...please Help
Robert
Hi all
I run q libv I2000lib on my library here some of the output:
tsm: ADSMq libv i2000lib
Library Name Volume Name Status Owner Last Use
HomeDevice
Element
Hi Robert,
TSM can and will mark a volume as private when a write error is encountered on
a scratch volume to prevent reuse. It's worth investigating if that could have
been the case. You may find recent cases in the actlog.
If you had a defective drive that (possibly) cause this, you could
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange Behaviour: backup STG primary storage
pool
Hi Rajesh,
could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your
server? Or that there is one exceptionally large node? IIRC bacup stg
for DISK works by node, so if one process is working
Hi,
When I trigger backup stg primary stg pool Tape copy stg pool
maxproc=2 command I see two processes getting submitted to backup the
primary storage pool (Disk dev class) to my tape copy pool.
After a while one of the processes gets completed normally while the
other keeps running
Hi Rajesh,
could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your server?
Or that there is one exceptionally large node? IIRC bacup stg for DISK works by
node, so if one process is working on the data of the last node, the other
process will finish if there is no data of other
: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Remco Post
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:02 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange Behaviour: backup STG primary storage
pool
Hi Rajesh,
could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your
TSM Server 5.5.4.1 under AIX 5.3-12-01.
TSM Client 6.2.1.1 under AIX 5.3-12-01
TDP for Oracle 5.5.2.0 - Oracle 10.2.0.4
I am trying to duplicate database from production to test with point in time
recovery.
It restores level 0 backups (13/10/10) and incremental backups from 14/10/10
Hi Grigori,
Look for read errors on your tape pools.
/Christian
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Grigori Solonovitch [mailto:grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com]
Skickat: den 26 oktober 2010 10:49
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Strange behaviour of TSM
TSM Server 5.5.4.1 under AIX 5.3
the environment before printing this Email
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Christian Svensson
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:35 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] SV: Strange behaviour of TSM
Hi Grigori,
Look
Hi to all
I implant few month ago a TDP of Exchange 2010 successfully via lanfree too
(to my Data Domain VTL storage)… Now I am adding a DRM backup for outside
purpose.
The entire configuration was done successfully:
· Grant proxynode
· Define path (for lanFree backup to
: Robert Ouzen rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il
To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
Date: 10/14/2010 06:09 AM
Subject: Strange behaviour
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
Hi to all
I implant few month ago a TDP of Exchange 2010 successfully via
lanfree too (to my Data Domain VTL storage
[mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Del
Hoobler
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:49 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange behaviour
When running Data Protection for Exchange with Exchange Server 2010, it uses
VSS.
When VSS is used, it is the Windows BA Client
Verzonden: vr 22-9-2006 23:12
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Have you tried opening a dsmc prompt and retyping the command q tsa?
That should recreate the encrypted file with the necessary
username/password. Is it possible the username/password you're using
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem on the following environment:
TSM Server 5.3.3.3
TSM Client 5.3.4.6 on Nertware OES 6.5 SP5
Every time I issue an incremental backup (scheduled or from the CLI) TSM
keeps asking me for a Netware user/password.
I specified NWPWFILE and NWUSER in the
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/22/2006 5:30 AM
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem on the following environment:
TSM Server 5.3.3.3
TSM Client 5.3.4.6 on Nertware OES 6.5 SP5
Every time I issue an
22 september 2006 15:50
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/22/2006 5:30 AM
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem on the following
] Namens Troy
Frank
Verzonden: vrijdag 22 september 2006 15:50
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/22/2006 5:30 AM
Hi All,
I've got
hello,
i've seen strange behaviour with acronis true image server on windows 2003
tsm server.
environment:
tsm server 5.2.4/5.3.3, plasmon g24 udo library (tsmscsi controlled), 3582
lto2 library (ibm driver controlled)
tsm client 5.2.x/5.3.4, no open file or image support installed
after
Hi All,
On one of our Small Business Server (W2K3 SP1) we have some strange
behaviour. After (re)starting the services (Client Acceptor and TDP
Exchange) all backups run fine for 2-3 days and then the services get
stuck and have to be restarted.
On another SBS we do not have those problems
Hi All,
Has anyone seen this behaviour and perhaps knows a cure?
Environment:
Windows 2003 Small Business Server
TSM Client 5.3.0.8
From time to time the scheduler process on W2K3 hangs and I manually
have to give the service a restart.
Other Windows 2003 Servers (not Small Business Servers)
PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
06/09/2005 07:46 AM
Please respond to
ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
To
ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Client 5.3.0.8 strange behaviour
Hi All,
Has anyone seen this behaviour and perhaps knows a cure?
Environment
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Curtis Stewart wrote:
Are you using dsmcad or dsmc to control the scheduling. I've seen
lots of
problems with hung schedulers on Windows, at many code levels, when
using
dsmc sched. Moving to managedservice schedule seems to solve it
for me
about 99% of the time.
:
Subject:Re: Client 5.3.0.8 strange behaviour
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Curtis Stewart wrote:
Are you using dsmcad or dsmc to control the scheduling. I've seen
lots of
problems with hung schedulers on Windows, at many code levels, when
using
dsmc sched. Moving to managedservice schedule
On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Richard van Denzel wrote:
The technote comes very close, but on this machine backups all went
ok,
but when I look in the dsmsched.log the service hangs between
communication with the server when the next schedule is due (we let
them
poll every hour). I will give
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bos, Karel
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:46 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
-snip-
Especially if this happens quit frequently.
Inaccurate fingers
Hi to all
I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm client version 5.2.3.4 , when I tried to
restore thru the gui (dsm.exe) a directory (WWW) nothing is display either
this directory or files.
I tried the same with the command line (dsmc.exe) and I got the this directory
and files too !
I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm client version 5.2.3.4 , when I
tried to restore thru the gui (dsm.exe) a directory (WWW) nothing is
display either this directory or files.
I tried the same with the command line (dsmc.exe) and I got the this
directory and files too !
Again: When
Just to add to Richard's comments:
The issue that Richard raises is not limited to point-in-time restores. It
can happen with any restore operation where a directory or its parent has
been expired from the server. I've discussed this in the past
: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
Raibeck
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 5:23 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
Just to add to Richard's comments:
The issue that Richard raises is not limited to point-in-time restores. It
can
I didn't mention P.I.T or Inactive because I run a regular restore
(active display)
What is strange is a see everything running thru the commend line
(dsmc.exe) and nothing thru the gui (dsm.exe) again with no option at
all !!
As the Web page which Andy URLed talks of, the GUI operates in a
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
I didn't mention P.I.T or Inactive because I run a regular restore
(active display) What is strange is a see everything running thru the
commend line
(dsmc.exe) and nothing thru the gui (dsm.exe) again with no option at
all !!
As the Web page which
Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew Raibeck
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 5:23 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
Just to add to Richard's comments:
The issue that Richard raises is not limited to point-in-time restores.
It
can happen
: Re: Very very strange behaviour
Robert,
As Richard indicated, it is difficult to tell what the real problem is without
additional information. It may be something unrelated to what Richard and I
mentioned in our earlier responses.
I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm client version 5.2.3.4
(IDS ECCS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour solaris 9 with domain option
Steve,
Use the following statement instead of what you are using.
Domain all-local -/oradata1 -/oradata2
Regards, Samiran
Hi Fellow TSM'ers
Problem as follows:
Server 5.2.2.0
Client 5.2.0.0 also tested 5.2.2.0
Solaris 5.9
If I use the domain statement in the dsm.sys file to exclude any one of the file
systems, it excludes all the file systems for example.
I have the following FS's on the client server
/
PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange behaviour solaris 9 with domain option
Hi Fellow TSM'ers
Problem as follows:
Server 5.2.2.0
Client 5.2.0.0 also tested 5.2.2.0
Solaris 5.9
If I use the domain statement in the dsm.sys file to exclude any one of
the file systems, it excludes all the file systems
Hello,
I use TSM 5.1 on AIX4.3.3 with a 3494 with four 3590E drives.
There's a strange behaviour when using the label libvol command.
The command is used like this:
label libvol 3494lib search=yes checkin=scratch devt=3590
volrange=031000,031001
The command returns successfully, but nothing
On donderdag, september 5, 2002, at 11:49 , Mario Strehlow wrote:
Hello,
I use TSM 5.1 on AIX4.3.3 with a 3494 with four 3590E drives.
There's a strange behaviour when using the label libvol command.
The command is used like this:
label libvol 3494lib search=yes checkin=scratch devt=3590
Hi to all
I made a selective backup of one of my Unix client(nodename DRM_STUDY)
directly to tape (it's the managment class by default).
The backup took a very long time and I saw that the backup wrote files too
on disk. I made a list contents of what is written on disk (here is the
output).
LVD drives
TSM server 4.2.1.8
TSM client 4.2.1.15
TDP for R/3 3.2.0.6
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: James Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
You mention 20 MB
LTO with 8 LVD drives
TSM server 4.2.1.8
TSM client 4.2.1.15
TDP for R/3 3.2.0.6
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: James Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: James Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
What you really need to find out is how fast are you sending data to the LTO
tape drives. The tape drives can only
twice the I/O running.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
-Original Message-
From: Denzel, Richard van [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
James,
The backup is made from the TDP for R/3 running on the same
What you really need to find out is how fast are you sending data to the LTO
tape drives. The tape drives can only go as fast as the data stream you
send to them. Or as fast as the destination can accept on a restore. If
you are only sending 2.5 MB/sec to the tape drives, then don't complain
Where is the data coming from? During the testing I did on LTO vs. SDLT I
observed similar behavior. I concluded that the RAID5 set containing my
disk storage pools was the bottleneck.
The paper is available at
http://www.storsol.com/pub/LTOvsSDLT.pdf?timeout=200
Kelly J. Lipp
Storage
PROTECTED]
.COMcc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RIST.EDU
07/02/02
Nope,
The 3584 is direct SCSI attached.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Swinhoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
If you are using a SAN DATa Gateway to bridge the gap between your FC
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two management classes.
One is called STANDARD and the other is called LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last
one only for my log server so I included the following line in my include/exclude
file:
INclude
hi,
it will be used for directories if the retonly value is the highest in this
DOMAIN,
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Caupain [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange behaviour
Hello everyone,
I have
:
Subject:Strange behaviour
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two
management classes. One is called STANDARD and the other is called
LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last one only for my log server so I
included the following line in my
PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Strange behaviour
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two
management classes. One is called STANDARD and the other is called
LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last one only for my log server so I
. Young
Senior System Engineer
Gresham Enterprise Storage
www.greshamstorage.com
Office: 303.413.1799 x 205
Mobile: 303.717.2745
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Caupain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange behaviour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/01 12:05PM
hi,
it will be used for directories if the retonly value is the highest in this
DOMAIN,
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Caupain [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange
:Re: Strange behaviour
But why EVERY directory of EVERY system, even the ones that have nothing
to do with this managementclass?
Why don't all other systems just use the default managementclass?
Do I really need to specify a dirmc for every system in order to get the
policy I need?
Regards
: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour
But why EVERY directory of EVERY system, even the ones that have nothing
to do with this managementclass?
Why don't all other systems just use the default managementclass
: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/26/2001 09:18
Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour
Hey Andy,
The example that you've outlined here has to do with files that reside on
one system. I can
71 matches
Mail list logo
