Has anyone heard when Tivoli is going to release a version of SnapDiff that
works on Clustered Data Ontap 8 (think latest version is 8.2 or 8.3)? My
understanding is that NetApp has given the API's to IBM, waiting on IBM to
incorporate them.
Thanks,
Steve Schaub
Systems Engineer II,
Pete/Del,
Thanks for the update, hopefully the details get worked out soon, this is the
only thing holding up an upgrade for us from an old N-Series.
-steve
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete
Tanenhaus
Sent: Wednesday, March
Thanks, Andy.
We are continuing to troubleshoot. It is difficult since I can't replicate the
problem on every backup, and our end users are a bit uneasy being our guinea
pigs. I will double-check, but pretty sure we have VE configured to force the
use of NBD, never Hotadd.
Thanks again for
Hi Eric,
On UNIX and Linux systems, if only file permissions have changed, then the
latest backup copy is updated with the changed permissions; it is not
backed up again in full.
From the online documentation at
We just went through this same issue on a Linux box. From the book:
According to the TSM 7.1.1 Backup-Archives client manual:
If only the following attributes change, the attributes are updated on the
Tivoli
Storage Manager server, but the file is not backed up:
– File owner
– File permissions
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015, at 03:52 PM, Matthew McGeary wrote:
We use SSD arrays for both our database
and our active log. That said, unless you are using TSM deduplication
or node replication, SSD disks should not be required for good server
performance.
Standard 15K SAS drives are more than
Hi guys!
Yesterday someone accidentally changed permissions on one of our Lotus Notes
servers. A new backup was made yesterday evening, but we cannot restore the
file with the old permissions. The client shows only one active file in TSM
(backup date 05/17/2013) and when this one is restored
Hi Karel,
A somewhat related APAR you should be aware of:
http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC92873
Best regards,
- Andy
Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead |
Anyone out there using this combination in a production environment?
We just purchased 2-servers to replace our oldest TSM servers still running
RH5. I am not ready to migrate to TSM V7 servers.
I see the latest Linux tape drivers support RH7 (TS3500 Library with TS1130
drives) so that
We just purchased two new DataDomain systems to replace old ones. The two old
DD's are a bi-directional replication pair using MTree replication. I need to
migrate the data to the new DD's. I could perform this at the TSM level with
new storage pools and perform migration between old/new
Thanks Andy and Zoltan for your reply!
Indeed this makes TSM not suitable for rolling back security errors. In fact,
when you change security attributes you won't be able to recover your system to
anything but the last backup state. No more point-in-time. Ok yes, you can
restore your files back
I have a PMR open on this, but I wanted to see if any of you have seen
something like this...
Setup:
TSM 7.1.1.3 / TDP for Oracle 7.1.0.0 clients, Oracle 11.2.0.3
TSM 6.3.5.0 server
All systems are AIX 6.1 TL9 SP3
Our DBAs were running a cross-node restore of the previous night's backup of
a
Do you tried to restore files for another backup date or tried to find
errors in actlog for the tape that is required for the restore?
2015-03-12 10:49 GMT-06:00 David Bronder david-bron...@uiowa.edu:
I have a PMR open on this, but I wanted to see if any of you have seen
something like
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
eric-van.l...@klm.com wrote:
TSM not suitable for rolling back security errors.
Agreed 100%
Personally if find this a flaw of the product...
Exactly what my Linux OS person said. We are going to have to completely
rebuild the
Hello. Need some help. I'm trying to create a new script for myself and I
want to get the PROCESS_NUM from the Processes table in a variable.
def script Processes desc=get Process Number
update script Processes 'declare process processes.PROCESS_NUM%type'
update script Processes 'START:'
When the restore had the failed objects, RMAN automatically restored the
necessary objects from the backup of one day earlier, along with all the
additional log backups it needed to bring the finished restore up to the same
point. The DBAs restore this database from prod to test daily (along with
At least on x86, there's also a benefit in having smaller page tables.
In particular, it makes the job of the TLB a lot easier for large memory
systems.
On 03/12/2015 03:59 AM, Steven Harris wrote:
Hi Andrew
The original reasoning on AIX was that as the data is transferred to
tape AIX gets a
Jeanne,
If you were to run those command at the DB2 level, they would work fine or
possible as a shell script ran from a TSM macro. There are limitations, as
you found out, when trying to run select statements from within TSM.
Best Regards,
Hi All,
I know we all grapple with outdated online documentation from time to time.
Does anyone have a suggestion for the best way to request IBM update an out of
date technote? I've already submitted feedback via the 'rate this page' link.
Is it better to open a service request? To me that
Later versions of AIX have two larger page sizes available and so the
number of locks to be taken and released drops dramatically for the
typical 256KB tape transfer.
This is what I'm really confused about, and our AIX admins don't have an answer.
Our Power systems with AIX supports 4k, 64k and
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:20:42PM -0400, Andrew Galloway wrote:
We have 2 TSM 6.3.5 servers running on zLinux. Is this something we could
leverage?
__
Andrew Galloway
Operational Systems Continuity Analyst
SSC RCMP Technology Directorate
CIO Building C1035
Hi Andrew
The original reasoning on AIX was that as the data is transferred to
tape AIX gets a spin lock on each 4k page and then has to release it,
so that a system using tape heavily spends quite a lot of CPU
acquiring and releasing locks.
Later versions of AIX have two larger page sizes
We have a considerable number of Linux TSM clients running on 32 bit x86
processors and currently using either 6.2.2.0 or 6.2.4.0 client code. These
client code levels have the privilege escalation bug described in the IBM
bulletin Tivoli Storage Manager Stack-based Buffer Overflow Elevation
Hi Thomas!
We have a considerable number of Linux TSM clients running on 32 bit
x86 processors and currently using either 6.2.2.0 or 6.2.4.0 client
code. These client code levels have the privilege escalation bug
described in the IBM bulletin Tivoli Storage Manager Stack-based
Buffer
24 matches
Mail list logo
