I have a few Solaris 9 5.5.3 clients and some Linux 5.5.1 clients working with a 6.3.0 server. their just not supported. Be aware that NODE REPLICATION of a 6.3.0 Client to a 6.3.0 Server will sometimes fail because of wanting data from your offsite DR tapes. IBM is supposedly working on a fix, but does not have an time estimate. Meanwhile, there is no known workaround. Ray
On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > I keep wondering if this is FACT or RECOMMENDATION. > > Based on this document: > https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 it > says you can not use the 6.3 CLIENT with a 5.5 SERVER. I documented this > and some user didn't pay attention and installed the 6.3 client on a node > still on a 5.5 server. So far, there haven't been any issues and it works > just fine. > > I am about to convert a 5.5 server to 6.x and was planning to jump > straight to 6.3. However, there a few nodes still running 5.4 and LOWER > level clients (down to 5.1 for an IRIX system). > > Anyone try a 5.x client with a 6.3 server? > > > Zoltan Forray > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator > Virginia Commonwealth University > UCC/Office of Technology Services > [email protected] - 804-828-4807 > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social > security number or confidential personal information. For more details > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html > > > > From: "Stackwick, Stephen" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 02/28/2012 03:28 PM > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> > > > > The problem with 6.3 is all your clients need to be at V6. If that's not > an issue, I might even wait a little bit longer for the first fixes which > Tivoli claims will be this quarter. > > Steve > > STEPHEN STACKWICK | Senior Consultant | 301.518.6352 (m) | > [email protected] | icfi.com > ICF INTERNATIONAL | 410 E. Pratt Street Suite 2214, Baltimore, MD 21202 | > 410.539.1135 (o) > > > ________________________________________ > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [[email protected]] on behalf of > Sheridan, Peter T. [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:27 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > > Would people recommend going with 6.2.3 or 6.3 ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Colwell, William F. > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > > I agree with Zoltan. I have 2 very large instances at 6.1.5.10 in > production > > doing large amounts of dedup processing. I am aware of the reorg issues > but it > > doesn't bother me, I am not interested in reorging the tables. In any > case > > 6.3 doesn't solve all the reorg issues, see apar ic81261 and flash > 1580639. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill Colwell > > Draper Lab > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > > > > WOW - such harsh words about 6.1 ! I don't agree......my main > production > > 6.x system is 6.1.5.10 with no issues. At least it hasn't had this > wacky, > > problem my other 6.2.x servers have had with a DB backup randomly, > > intermittently failing with no discernible reason....(note, there are > docs > > that say you really need to be at least at 6.1.4.1 to resolve some big > > problems, especially with reorgs) > > > > > > Zoltan Forray > > TSM Software & Hardware Administrator > > Virginia Commonwealth University > > UCC/Office of Technology Services > > [email protected] - 804-828-4807 > > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will > > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social > > security number or confidential personal information. For more details > > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html > > > > > > > > From: "Prather, Wanda" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Date: 02/28/2012 05:57 AM > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > What Remco said. > > Nothing Good will Happen on 6.1. > > I finally got a production system stable on 6.1.3 by disabling reorgs, > but > > that was Windows. > > I wouldn't even think of doing it on Linux. > > > > W > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Remco Post > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:10 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Deployment Engine Failed to initialize > > > > Hi, > > > > do not use TSM server 6.1, not even if you have no other options. 6.1 > does > > not even begin to approach alpha quality software. IBM should never have > > shipped it. I can't think of a single good reason to install 6.1. Go > with > > 6.2.3 or newer or 6.3 something. > > > > > > > > On 27 feb. 2012, at 22:57, George Huebschman wrote: > > > >> We are getting the "Deployment Engine Failed to Initialize" when > >> running ./install.bin for TSM Server 6.1 on a clean new RHEL server. > >> I see lots of noise out here about this error, in and out of the TSM > > world. > >> > >> (We have another TSM installation of TSM 6.3 on a VM that isn't even > >> QA as such, just a practice install.) Documetation specifies that > >> there be 2GB available in the home directory. > >> We only have 1.6 GB, BUT so does the successful 6.3 install. > >> We had the error on the first and subsequent 3 attempts to run the > >> install. We did not find any .lock or .lck files. > >> I am told that SELINUX is set to permissive. > >> > >> Except for the home directory, the other space guidelines were met. > >> The install is being done as root. > >> > >> Looking at the TSM related posts about this issue, I didn't notice any > >> for releases after 6.1. > >> Is that because I didn't look hard enough? Or, was documentation > >> improved, or was a bug fixed? > >> Should I talk someone into 6.2 to get past this? > >> > >> Most of my experience has been with 5.* I have read the install guide > >> (most of it) for 6.2, which is what I thought we were installing. Do > >> I need to step back in documentation? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> George Huebschman > >> > >> "When you have a choice, spend money where you would prefer to work if > >> you had NO choice." > > > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards, > > > > Remco Post > > [email protected] > > +31 6 248 21 622
