Aloha
i have put 10 new Tape into the Library. I marked them with scratch. After 2
days
they all went back to private, so i change them back to scratch ... this game
i am playing for one week now, and i am tried. I can't see any reason why this
happens.
Maybe anyone of you can make some sence
Mark,
Have you had a look in the Activity Log if there is a reason mentioned
there?
Mostly this will happen if the tape is in use by TSM (either for data or
DBBackup).
Do the following to see if the volumes are seen:
q drm
q v
q volh t=dbb
q volh t=dbs
Richard.
Mark Strasheim [EMAIL
Hi,
Sometimes it helps to give some insight into your environment, like server
level/type, library type/make/model.
Tapes will be mark private if there are things like write error. The tsm
activity log should report errors just before a message like changed to
private to prevent re-access.
Aloha
Sorry i forgot to say:
I checked the actlog, and took the error code ANR8355E, which i allso look up.
What is ment by prelabeled? I use barcode which are sticked onto the tape.
I check them in, with checkin libvolume with search=yes. I'm pretty sure,
that i check in the first tapes the same
Mark,
This is not the way to check in new scratch tapes, this should be done by
using the command:
LABEL LIBV library SEARCH=YES LABELS=BAR CHECKIN=SCR OVERWRITE=YES
Richard.
Mark Strasheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
16-03-2005 11:46
Please
Hi Josi,
Has this ever worked before for you? Or has it suddenly stopped working?
Things to check - are all of your tdpo.opt, dsm.opt, inclexcl.txt,
dsm.sys and agent.lic files readable by the oracle user (or whoever you
run your RMAN commands as)? Do `tdpoconf showenv` and `tdpoconf
password`
Can it be because it didn't label the cartridges ? And when TSM tried to use
them, it didn't find any TSM label so they are marked private.
Normally I am checkin scratch tapes with label libvolume command.
Regards,
Tuncel Mutlu
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
exactly the same here ...
- Original Message -
From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: linux client version question
No problems that I am aware of !
I have been dispersing the 5.3.x client of all flavors
Why not just archive the data to management class with retver set to nolimit?
Seems a whole lot easier.
Gary Lee
Senior System Programmer
Ball State University
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Schaub
Sent: Tuesday, March
I remember seeing a message on this, but can't remember specifics.
Need a means by which to stop any script that is running, such as daily
maintenance processing.
Thanks for the help.
Gary Lee
Senior System Programmer
Ball State University
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked
This might give you a clue: http://msgs2.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0301/639.html
They create a second script named stop_process and after each step in script
1 they
check for the existance of script 2 and exit if found.
HTH
Thoams Rupp
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ADSM: Dist Stor
Because the underlying need is to preserve all the backup versions as they
are as of today, not just to take a snapshot of the current data.
Richard also responded to my question, and his point is that my step 3 would
not rebind the inactive versions to the new domain, only the active ones.
So,
We had something similar.
1) Created a new domain with all set to Nolimit,
2) Then upd the node to be in that dom.
3) renamed the original node name to something like xxx.old
4) regged a new node name using the orig node name in its orig dom.
Onlly downside is that doing restores prior to
Jurjen Oskam wrote:
Hi there,
some of you might remember that I encountered a problem when upgrading
TSM from 5.2 to 5.3. The problem was that FILE-volumes reached a premature
end-of-volume, causing a 64 MiB volume to only be 1,5 % used but still
be full.
The cause of this is now known, and it's
Export node?
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve Schaub
Sent: woensdag 16 maart 2005 14:11
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Freezing a node's data - revisiting 'Need to save
permanent cop y of all files currently being stored'
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Schaub
Because the underlying need is to preserve all the backup
versions as they
are as of today, not just to take a snapshot of the current data.
Richard also responded to my question, and his point is that
my step 3
John E. Vincent wrote:
We're running 5.3 clients against a 5.2 server right now and it works
just fine. And since I don't plan on upgrading my servers to 5.3 until I
HAVE to do it, it will stay that way for a while.
I have one problem in my test environment that I have not bothered to
look into:
Steve,
I presume you don't want to use export
As for expiration, the Admin Guide states
If a file is bound to a management class that no longer exists, the server
uses the
default management class to manage the backup versions. When the user does
another backup, the server rebinds the file and
We have been a TSM shop for years (no problem with it) but are being asked to
look at Netbackup. Part of our evaluation is going to consist of a survey to
our platform admins who do our Archives / RMAN / Restores etc. We do use NBU
at many remote locations which only some of our platform
Charles,
Were you able to confirm that all of the inactive versions, including ones
of deleted files, rebound correctly, so that nothing expired from that
point?
-steve
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hart, Charles
Sent: Wednesday,
Just spoke to our Exchange Admin and he stated he was able to see all the old
data we reassociated. This process came from our Tivoli CE who confirmed
with Tivoli. Wish there was an easier way, but it works.
Regards,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
See responses below:
Can anyone comment on modifying this procedure by following these steps:
1.Create a domain called Freezer with only one mgmtclass - bu/ar
copygroup settings all at nolimit
2.upd node water domain=freezer
3.run an incremental on water to rebind all data to
I agree that this should be done with NEW tapes, but I disagree with using
OVERWRITE=YES as a standard practice.
To review:
Tape libraries require bar code labels on the OUTSIDE of the tapes.
TSM ALSO requires an internal label, written at the beginning of the tape.
The internal label must
I use the AUTOLABEL=YES on the library definition. Saves me the headache
when operations puts new tapes in without telling they got new tapes!
I did find that if a Storage Agent mounts a tape that isn't label'd it will
reject it even though AUTOLABEL=YES is turned on for the library.
It's still
As a general rule I agree with you. I have had instances where a tape
needed to be relabeled (with overwrite=yes) to make it work again.
Basically, with tapes that start causing weird I/O errors and stuff, or
error out from some reason early on after the tape's been loaded (usually
with an actlog
I have a user with a problem with the TDP for Domino Notes servers
(installed the latest TDP client to see if it would make a difference - it
did not).
A user need to have a mailbox restored. The last backup run (a full
backup after sorting - 600GB+) from this weekend show the file being
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:21:23PM +0100, Remco Post wrote:
to be aware of. In TSM 5.3, the handling of FILE volumes was changed.
All writes to such a volume is now done in blocks of 256 KiB minimum,
even when the object itself is much smaller.
and IBM sells this as WAD? Does this also
Zoltan,
Did you issue the DOMDSMC QUERY DBBACKUP command?
Is the backup there?
If not, did you try an inactive query? (/INACTive option)
Did you try restoring with the command-line?
What happens?
If you cannot get your data restored, please call IBM support.
Thanks,
Del
The user responded that, yes she has tried your suggestions (she is THE
Notes person - I am simply the TSM server guy !)
If we call IBM for support, do we get you ?
Del Hoobler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
03/16/2005 02:25 PM
Please respond to
ADSM:
Zoltan,
No. I am development. However, the TSM Service team
will direct you to someone that will be able to
identify the problem.
Thanks,
Del
ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU wrote on 03/16/2005
03:30:39 PM:
The user responded
OK, after spending a large portion of my day reviewing adsm-l post going back to
2000, I'm still not sure. Does anyone know if there is still a performance
problem
running reclamation on a DIRMC random access disk pool?
I came across one post that said it was supposedly fixed, but recommended
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
OK, after spending a large portion
Thanks Tim
Doug Thorneycroft
Systems Analyst
Computer Technology Section
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(562) 699-7411 Ext. 1058
FAX (562) 699-6756
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
First let me say that this message mostly applies to SCSI tape libraries,
typically 3494 shops are sharing the library and will have a different
procedure for labeling/checking in tapes, due to category assignments,
volser ranges, etc.
TSM still protects you from overwriting a label and losing
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers that
have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool. Even when none
What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
The reason we implemented DIRMC is so that when a user restores a file(s) there
are not extra tape mounts to restore the directories We ran into this on
multiple occasions, even when all files were on disk, tape mounts would occur
because the
- Original Message -
in a much faster backup. Now all that being said this new feature in V5.3
warrents new consideration. My new consideration is to stop using DIRMC
pools as the reason they were created in the first place has also long been
fixed.
Which reason is this that has been
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:29:50PM -0600, Rushforth, Tim wrote:
[DIRMC]
What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
Probably the fact that sequential volumes are written to in blocks of at
least 256 KB, even when the data is only 1500 bytes. This can cause a lot of
overhead, and the
38 matches
Mail list logo
