I share the same policy. If I see any sort of error on a tape that looks
like it's jeopardizing the repository, I immediately move the data off
using 'move data' or worst case I delete the volume using discard=yes. The
absolute worst possible thing I can think of is going to restore someone's
I just installed a 5.2.2.0/5.2.2.2 system on a Linux server and it
apparently came up with all of these 50 trial license seats. I tried
activating my real entitlements and it seems to ignore me and continues to
have all of those trial licenses still active. The register license
command seems to
I want to setup a test server and need an exact clone of my production
(5.2.2.1 Linux) server and configuration WITHOUT any of the node and
contents. Is there a dump/restore type operation that will do this
completely? Other than copying configuration files and manually setting
everything up, is
I'm running a TSM 5.2.1.2 Linux server with a few Linux clients. Is there
a way to kill incremental backup jobs on the Linux client gracefully? If I
ctrl-C I get a core dump and error messages. I haven't tried cancelling
the sessions from the server because I'm not sure which session is running
I am soliciting opinions on something.
I have a small server maintaining about 300 filesystems in 30TB on one client running
Linux. I
have a very fast (dual Xeon with 4GB memory) Linux server running with a very fast
Linux client
(single 3GHz class machine) all on a private gigE network. Once
Prather, Wanda wrote:
1. IT DEPENDS. (You KNEW I was going to say that, didn't you?!?)
Yes.
2. There is no right answer (so you will probably be getting LOTS of
opinions back about this question ;).
Understood.
3. If you only have a few clients to back up, it just doesn't matter.
Having been part of three original joint studies with ESMS (which never saw
the light of day), WDSF (which morphed into ADSM) and finally another ADSM
project back in the late '80s and early '90s, I only had access to the line
mode admin client in the early days and I still use it to this day.
Simple Question:
In a disk storage pool which migrates to LTO tape, what is the optimal size for
the volumes to be?
Let's assume the following:
Fast network connection(s)
1-to-many clients (depending on the time of day)
1000GB of fast local storage (SAN, SCSI, Fiber, etc.)
UNIX/Linux/AIX/Solaris
What type of OS on Intel?
If it's Linux then the problem is easy to overcome (and I don't mean by using a
journaling filesystem, either).
Mitch
Brenda Collins wrote:
Hi!
We are considering building a TSM server on Intel but there is concern
about putting a lot of disk behind it and then
I just put a call into our sales rep today. Anyone know how much it
costs to upgrade from 5.1 to 5.2?
Richard Sims wrote:
Does anyone know when TSM 5.2 is scheduled for release?
http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/usaletsparms=H_203-095
Richard Sims, BU
On a Linux server running 5.1.5.6 with a Linux admin client running 5.1.x
client I get the following response to 'q proc'
tsm: SERVER1q proc
Process Process Description Status
Number
-
186 Migration
It seems to me that some of this is related to dynamic linking in the tsmscsi
components. The rest of TSM appears to be running on many other kernels
without issues. My suggestion would be to beef up the tsmscsi executables to
support any and all possible configurations and the problem goes
It's my opinion that they could have done a better job of choosing which distros
and kernels to offer out. My first choice would have been a recent SuSE
professional (not the $600 enterprise version) distribution instead of Redhat
7.2 with an antiquated kernel that will not run on their X-series
The current 5.1.6.5 TSM server for Linux is supported on the following
platforms:
Red Hat 7.2 on ia32 architecture
Kernel levels: 2.4.9-31 (for uniprocessor systems)
2.4.9-31smp (for multiprocessors systems)
Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 on ia32 architecture
Kernel levels:
of the immaturity of
the product. It's just way too primitive (perhaps it has too many training
wheels) for us.
Stef Coene wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2003 19:06, Mitch Sako wrote:
The current 5.1.6.5 TSM server for Linux is supported on the following
platforms:
Red Hat 7.2 on ia32 architecture
Kernel
I noticed that after awhile, my database gets quite large. Assuming that
it's consistent, unloaddb/loaddb seems to compress out all of the junk and
makes it much smaller. Is there a way to check the database for how much
space might be recovered by doing an unloaddb/loaddb? Currently, I'm at
I'm running a 5.1.6.5 Linux server with some NFS disk repository over
gigabit ethernet. The NFS is pretty well tuned and stable and runs almost
as fast as local 10,000 RPM SCSI disk. What I was wondering about is the
size of the disk repository data volumes. I tried some 100GB files and
those
%'{INSTALLPREFIX}' TIVsm-tsmscsi-5.1.6-2`
Mitch Sako wrote:
The tsmscsi that is in 5.1.6.2 for Linux32 is not working for us:
We are running Redhat 7.2:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
Linux tsm2 2.4.9-31 #1 Tue Feb 11 14:43:37 PST 2003 i686 unknown
The 5.1.6.2 tsmscsi executable prints
The number of possible Linux configurations is extremely limited. Two of them
involve enterprise Linux distros, including a SuSE one that I could not figure
out a way to buy. The RH enterprise offering requires a kernel that does not
ship with the product and it's a large task in itself to get
The tsmscsi that is in 5.1.6.2 for Linux32 is not working for us:
We are running Redhat 7.2:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
Linux tsm2 2.4.9-31 #1 Tue Feb 11 14:43:37 PST 2003 i686 unknown
The 5.1.6.2 tsmscsi executable prints the following strange message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./tsmscsi
I have it running in a lab environment and I'm having big problems with the
Adaptec SCSI driver. I can get the server to behave for as long as a few days
but it always seems to hang up (both TSM and Linux) on the drivers. I've
tried many different things, including compiling everything with
not a TSM issue.
Paul D. Seay, Jr.
Technical Specialist
Naptheon Inc.
757-688-8180
-Original Message-
From: Mitch Sako [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tape Requests Never Mounting
I have a new 5.1.5 test server running
I have a new 5.1.5 test server running on Linux that puts up mount requests for
migrations to a set of 4mm manual drives and the server is never acknowledging that
the tape is mounted and therefore never starts the migration. I noticed that when
I was doing manual labeling that the first few
,
the software will be installed. All tape and disk devices and volumes are the
same. I just want to move everything to the new 5.2 server.
Would it be easier to clone the 4.2 system and do an upgrade in place? If so,
what would be the process for cloning a system?
Mitch Sako
Since you don't say what OS your server is running on I'll assume that it's
some sort of UNIX. Try putting the full path of 'mail' in the command. Also,
you need to redirect the contents to the mailer i.e. '(fullpathtomail)/mail -s
Morning Report (reportfiletosend)'
Depending on which OS
Pass and the early
development days, that would be great. Please don't include any of this lore
until it's been verified by someone else who was involved in WDSF/ADSM back then.
Mitch Sako
Roger Deschner wrote:
I applaud the effort to create a FAQ, especially the emphasis on how to
get off
26 matches
Mail list logo
