I do not mean to be disagreeable, but my testing has indicated that you
cannot exclude a drive in Windows with an exclude or exclude.dir
command. I use the domain -z: and that works.
This may also have to do with versions and other stuff.
Andy Huebner
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist
Well here is yet another new one for me. I run this to eject tapes and it
creates a file that the mainframe uses to create a list of tapes going to
the vault. With the 3494 and TSM 5.2 there is nothing else to do. Today I
ran this for the first time with a 3584 and TSM 5.3.3 and only one tape
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:24:32PM -0700, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote:
I am assuming that changing remove=yes to remove=bulk will fix the issue of
the system waiting for a reply and if the I/O port becomes full it will
continue to wait till they are removed and the port made available again. I
am
This seems to be a change in behavior in 5.3. Both CHECKOUT LIBV and MOVE DRM
with REM=BULK work somewhat differently. I notice that
on the checkouts a scan of the I/O BULK port is done first, then the tape is
moved to an available port. On the fast 3584 library,
this doesn't add that much time
Thank you.
I have restarted TSM scheduler services and it has now worked as
expected. I would have expected that the change would be effective if I
have run through the wizard in the BA Client and it said 'Scheduler
service successfully updated'. I got the clue after seeing slide 6 from
Raibeck's
I do not mean to be disagreeable, but my testing has indicated that you
cannot exclude a drive in Windows with an exclude or exclude.dir
command. I use the domain -z: and that works.
Well yes and no. It depends on how rigidly or loosely you define the
word exclude. The short answer is
Minor correction and comment to my prior post on this subject:
CORRECTION
In my prior note on this subject, I wrote:
So between those two EXCLUDE statements, just about everything on z: is
excluded. The lone exception, that you can't bypass, is the root of z:
itself. Thus the first time you run:
Hi Michal,
I am happy to hear that you found my presentation materials useful! :-)
Question regarding your statement:
... but in fact I wasn't looking for a way to
exclude the whole drive ...
Your original question seemed to regard how to exclude the e: drive... if
you did not want to
Andrew Raibeck wrote:
Hi Michal,
I am happy to hear that you found my presentation materials useful! :-)
Question regarding your statement:
... but in fact I wasn't looking for a way to
exclude the whole drive ...
Your original question seemed to regard how to exclude the e: drive...
