-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 11:33, Wei JW Ji wrote:
Hi John,
Have you tried to specify the TCPPORT into the dsm.opt of baclient?
It works for me for the datamover node.
Thanks,
Hunter
This is fine!
This is for the VMcli config.
Going through testing of converting/upgrading a server and have a few
questions as well as seeing some oddities. Doing this on a test server
since we will be moving everything to a new machine for the actual move.
This is what I did (following the instruction in the book):
1. Installed server
I know this has been discussed in various forms over the years, but I'm
specifically wondering about the current state of hardware
I have a long history with TSM on AIX. It's stable, familiar and an I/O
powerhouse. Our Unix admins also favor AIX for serious, heavy-duty
workloads.
We are looking
When comparing systems, I would use benchmarks suitable for transactional DB
systems. Power7 systems have 4 VPUs per CPU, which really makes a difference.
Also look at how many I/O cards you will need, etc. A big factor is what
you're most comfortable with.
At 12:34 PM 4/20/2012, Shawn Drew
I have to agree with Paul.
If you don't mind supporting TSM on Linux then try it.
I can tell you this, alot will depend on how well IBM will support TSM on
Linux.
You didn't mention how many TSM instances you are supporting on AIX.
If you want to compare notes send me a note offline.
On Fri,
IBM seems to be distancing itself from Solaris in general. We run Domino
on Solaris Sparc (just starting to move to Google for Education - yea!)
and with 6.3 they did not update the TDP and said 5.5 was the end of the
line for the Solaris TDP. 6.3 for Domino only supports Linux, AIX and
Windows.
There was an embarassingly bad TCP window size scaling bug in RHEL 5.4. It
wasn't acknowledged in any way by RedHat, until late in 5.5, and wasn't
fixed until 5.6.
I faced long and continued skepticism from the network people, and the
Linux admins, that such a bug could exist in a RHEL
All,
On systems where we're running Oracle database instances, we generally have
four filesystems dedicated to Oracle named: /u01, /u02, /u03, /u04.
Since these are used by a DBMS, we don't want to back them up with TSM using
normal filesystem backups as those backups would be useless.
Do those specific names show up as individual filesystems in a df output
? (i.e. not subdirectories, etc)
Regards,
Shawn
Shawn Drew
Internet
cballen...@fsu.edu
Sent by: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
04/20/2012 02:11 PM
Please respond to
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Shawn
Drew
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:24 PM
To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Inclexcl File Syntax Question
Do those specific names show up as individual filesystems in a df
I have to exclude all /uxx/ file systems except /u01/oradata/dwhprod.
I'm not always told when new file systems are added so I use
exclude.dir /u0[2-9]/oradata/dwhprod
exclude.dir /u[1-9][0-9]/oradata/dwhprod
Jim Schneider
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
11 matches
Mail list logo
