Jim,
Use the command Show lib to see if there's anything that might help you.
To release from this state, only if you restart TSM I think.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Jim Davis jjda...@email.arizona.eduwrote:
A q mount returns
ANR8376I Mount point reserved in device class LTODEV,
OK. I have a customer that upgraded to Exchange2010 from Exchange2007 and
the new backups are running just fine. I started those backups to a separate
storage pool from the 2007 data. Now they need some restores from the 2007
backups, but the original Exchange2007 server doesn't exist any more. As
Thanks!
On 2/2/2011 9:29 AM, Leandro Mazur wrote:
Jim,
Use the command Show lib to see if there's anything that might help you.
To release from this state, only if you restart TSM I think.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Jim Davisjjda...@email.arizona.eduwrote:
A q mount returns
ANR8376I
Andy I sent you the log as requested. Thank you!
~Rick
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of
Andrew Raibeck
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:33 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Win64 2008: tsmutil164.dll and
I have been asked to evaluate the use of copypool-only TSM servers built on
virtual machines.
Virtual machines on ESX can't do I/O to tape devices, but the source server for
a server-to-server copy pool does not need to do I/O to tape devices. It sends
its files to the target TSM server which
Hello TSM admins,
We have TSM 6.1 client end server. Is it possible to enable the snapdiff option
if http is disable on our Nseries 7600 nas (netapp)?
We only admin acchs by https.
Thanks,
Alain
+--
|This was sent by
I am not sure I understand.
You want to build virtual TSM servers with no storage pools to funnel the data
to a physical TSM with storage pools to reduce the workload on the physical
server? What work are you trying to reduce since the physical server will
still have the data on its network
Bill,
I suspect it has to do with the fact that something isn't quite right
with the AD in your standalone environment and there is a mismatch
with GUIDS. Try this article to see if it helps:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126
It is for Exchange 2003, but the
I should clarify that client backups would be written to primary pools on disk.
So, my subject line is misleading. There would be primary pools on disk, but
no primary pools on tape.
Hope that clears up any confusion I created in the way I stated my question.
Thank you,
Ketih
Respectfully, isn't the intention for the /EXCSERVER= switch for the exchange
instance name and not the server or host name, which in some cases such as
clustering for example these names would be different?
~Rick
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
Yes Rick, that is the main intention of that option.
I was trying to find a possible solution for the problem
that Pierre was seeing. The /EXCSERVER is also used to
communicate with the Exchange Server. Since it did not
work, IBM support can help Pierre gather traces to
find out why WinRM is
Keith,
A few thoughts
Putting a TSM server on a VM may have advantages in performing a quick
recovery of the TSM server in the event of a corrupted DB or other nasty
event. Not sure how DB2 would integrate with VM snapshots but it sounds
interesting.
If you are backing up VMs or data
Hi Keith
I had a similar idea a while back. In my case it was about using a
single TSM infrastructure to provide backups to multiple independent
customers.
My idea was to have a vmware box and a standard TSM server image which
would have enough disk to store one night's backup. The next
Andy,
I omitted from my original problem statement that the TSM servers on virtual
machines would have primary pools on disk, just no primary pools on tape.
Client backups would be written to the disk pools, then copied to the two copy
pools.
The total backup workload would not be reduced,
14 matches
Mail list logo
