"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> wrote on 2005-02-26 04:35:49:
> Andy, > I just had a quick look at the 1st few pages of the v4.0 of the WinPE > document and found the following: > > > 1) Doesn't state that the machine you're taking a backup of must be > already registered as a node in TSM. The field guide is not intended as a primer on the product, but is an adjunct to the formal product documentation (in which the basics are already covered). In particular, the first page after the table of contents states the following regarding the target audience: "This field guide is intended for storage administrators and skilled technical support personnel who need to recover Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 systems from a catastrophic system or hardware failure. The guide assumes technical proficiency with installation, configuration, and use of Windows systems with the Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) Backup-Archive client." It a reasonable expectation for such an audience to understand the need to have a registered node; or, if they forgot to register one, to know what to do when the error message appears telling them that the node is not registered. > 2) States that you have to have two volumes available to carryout a > "online" backup. As you subsequently noted, this document was released before availability of 5.3. It is certainly reasonable that any subsequent update to this document should include a modification of this statement to account for the lifting of the restriction in TSM client version 5.3. > 3) diskpart: When you go to the link in the doc about diskpart > (http://www.microsoft.com/library/errorpages/smarterror.aspx?404;http:// > www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/prodocs/en-us/d > iskpart.mspx) > you get the following msg: > > We're sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page that matches your > entry. It is possible you typed the address incorrectly, or the page may > no longer exist. You may wish to try another entry or choose from the > links below, which we hope will help you find what you're looking for. It is an unfortunate fact that URLs are not necessarily static. If they change over time, then despite our best intentions to provide direct links, there will almost always be a lag from the time the URL changes to when we can identify the change and make the corresponding correction. Having said that, I do not think such is the case here. The rev 4 guide contains the following link, which works for me: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/diskpart.mspx Noting the differences between this link and the one you cited, you will see that the one I cite has two letter 'd's in the "proddocs" component of the URL. > It might be better if in the document there was an explanation relating > to the fact that not all versions of Diskpart work on all versions of > Windows servers. I will feed this back to the authors of the field guide. > My understanding is that documentation should take into consideration > that not everyone is an expert, and indeed there are a lot of people > using TSM that aren't, including myself. In order for the guide to not grow to an unwieldy size (knowing that you need a registered node is only one of many potential knowledge gaps), we have to start somewhere with an assumption about the base knowledge of the user. I realize that the field guide has not met your expectations, but to be fair to the field guide in this regard, it does take this into consideration by disclosing the expected technical expertise of the target audience, as I mentioned above. > Now if someone picking up this > document and following it to the letter, is going to run into problem > after problem. Presumably people aren't going to try this for the first > time on a production server, so it may not already be a node in TSM. A > small thing but the 1st of many issues you'd run into following this > documentation. Even assuming a high level of proficiency on the part of the user, it is not possible to anticipate every possible pitfall. Testing of *any* new system should occur before putting that system into production. And [periodic] testing of disaster recovery procedures should be a given. As I said in an earlier post, the procedures in the field guide have been tested by the authors, so they are not entirely hypothetical. But that does not mean problems cannot be discovered after publication, be they errors we should have caught in advance or unanticipated problems related to the particular environment in which the procedures are used. Notwithstanding the problems you have encountered in trying to get your feedback through, we welcome any feedback that helps us correct glaring errors or omissions in the documentation, or otherwise improves the quality of the documentation. Regards, Andy
