Hi Dave. The two situations where I am experiencing this are non-dedupe environments. Both installations have a copypool using devclass=vv (devclass vv is a server device type device class). In both situations there is a vvpool -> vvtape storage pool hierarchy on the target server such that prepare devc=vv_small pops the RPF archive object onto a device class disk storage pool and the large device class vv archive objects can be directed either to disk or the next storage pool based on maxsize for the vvpool. In one installation the next storage pool is device class LTO, and in the other installation it's device class SATA which is a device type FILE device class. Both installations were v5 to v6 upgrades. In the tape-less environment, I have set delgraceperiod to 0 because of disk space constraints. Our problem in both environments is a superset of
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21395087 which talks only about the database backups. As to being able to stuff the archive objects into a dedupe pool, I assume that this is now allowed, based on http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC64970 The question is, will the archive objects actually be deduped (assuming that the target server has DEDUPREQUIRESBACKUP NO set in dsmserv.opt). There is a PMR in the process of being submitted, once I have the PMR number I will send it to your LN ID. Joerg Pohlmann 250-686-3711 -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Canan Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:30 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM v6 - virtual volume deletion leaves archive objects on target server Joerg, I checked with development on this. Are you doing this with a dedup storage pool? They did have one APAR for that 2 months ago. I would first suggest getting a PMR opened; if you do that, I can pursue it. Dave Canan IBM Advanced Technical Support TSM Performance ddcananATUSDOTIBMDOTCOM On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM, J. Pohlmann <jpohlm...@shaw.ca> wrote: > I am just wondering if other folks have encountered this problem where > the deletion of a virtual volume (for example as result of > reclamation) on the source server leaves the archive object "dangling" on the target server. > Delgraceperiod is the default of 5 days. Reconcile volumes fix=yes > cleans it all up again. I have seen this on TSM v6.1 and v6.2. TSM v5 > works fine with this default. Does anyone have a fix for this? I have > been doing ad-hoc periodic reconcile volumes for months on a v6 > virtual volume environment because I first suspected server-to-server > communications problems, but then saw the same thing happen in other > installations. > > > > Joerg Pohlmann > > 250-585-3711 >