Hi,
How can I find out which nodes are using DIRMC easily, I have a DIRMC primary
tape pool DIRTAPEPOOL ?
Thanks
Bill
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew
Raibeck
Sent: 15 October 2009 11:22
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Query OCCupancy STGpool=DIRTAPEPOOL
Or
select distinct NODE_NAME from OCCUPANCY where
STGPOOL_NAME='DIRTAPEPOOL'
jmc
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Bill DOURADO
Sent: segunda-feira, 19 de Outubro de 2009 9:07
To:
jmc
Thankyou
Bill
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Costa,
Justino
Sent: 19 October 2009 10:58
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC
Query OCCupancy STGpool=DIRTAPEPOOL
Or
select distinct NODE_NAME from
Yes, I am still use DIRMC to prevent holding directories in management class
with the biggest expiry period in domain. Do you have any information about IBM
plans for DIRMC?
Grigori G. Solonovitch
Senior Technical Architect
Information Technology Bank of Kuwait and Middle East
Grigori,
No I don't have any information about IBM plans for DIRMC?
Bill
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Grigori Solonovitch
Sent: 15 October 2009 10:20
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC
Yes, I am still use
It really depends on your retore needs. Directories are a special case of
small files. Restore performance from tape, especially for lots of small
files, will vary depending on whether you collocate by file space or node,
or if you don't collocate at all; plus how well tapes are managed via
Should work! This is what TSM refers to as rebinding. Be sure to mark the
override client settings in the cloptset option.
Regards,
Nicholas
ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU wrote on 07/08/2009
01:46:01 PM:
[image removed]
[ADSM-L] Dirmc and cloptset questions
Lee, Gary D.
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 15:11, Copperfield Adams wrote:
I have a node which has all data bar 1 top-level directory and
its contents bound to the default management class (2 year
retention). I have a separate management class set up with a
slightly longer retention policy for directories
From what I have seen, only the active files are rebound. Any
files/directories previously deleted from the host will not be rebound
to the new MC.
Ben
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Becky Davidson
Sent: Thursday, March
From what I have seen, only the active files are rebound.
Clarification:
All backup versions of a given file must be bound to the same management
class, so when the rebind occurs, it occurs for not only the active
version, but all inactive versions as well.
Files that have been deleted from
Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the
longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special
group of machines with all sorts of special handling. I've used DIRMC to
ensure the directory of some desktop doesn't get treated in the same way.
At
Yes it still works that way when you don't specify a DIRMC.
Kyle
fred johanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the
longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special
group of machines with all sorts of special
all files were on disk, tape mounts
would occur because the directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation
Paul -
This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. We've
discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on it in ADSM
QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to further pursuit
in IBM doc.
Richard Simshttp://people.bu.edu/rbs
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM,
Hi Richard,
I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have done long
ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate directories are created and the
real directories are restored as they are hit.
Has anyone really observed this to be genuinely true? I have in the past
observed the
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
issues resolved or not.
Hi Richard,
I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have
done long ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate
directories are created and the real directories are restored
as they are hit
Paul,
Using a separate pool for directories is something that many have been doing
for a long time and just kept doing even after IBM implemented the new
directory restore method (restore order processing). If you look at a
directory as a small file then you can see why keeping it in a
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Paul,
It is definitely, absolutely, positively, seen it myself - fixed
Been
fixed for years. Forget DIRMC.
Ken
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Jurjen -
In this thread, and the Minor gotcha on upgrade to 5.3 thread, you
indicate that TSM 5.3 has changed things such that ...the handling of
FILE volumes was changed. All writes to such a volume is now done in
blocks of 256 KiB minimum Could you provide a documentation or web
site
reclaims happen by themselves, or do you have to force it somehow?
Thanks
Wanda
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation
?
Thanks
Wanda
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed (somewhere
: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:49 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Tim:
We are looking at using all disk now for our onsite disk pool with our
next capital$ buy.
Something I've never been sure of -
Whenf you use a type=file
Tim/Steve
Thanks - got it!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:17 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
1. You
but this is not the case (at least on windows, on 5.2.2.4
- discussed on the list).
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:09 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:38:16AM -0500, Richard Sims wrote:
blocks of 256 KiB minimum Could you provide a documentation or web
site reference for that 5.3 change?
No, sorry. Just the info I received through the PMR. I made the suggestion
to include this in e.g. a README, and that
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Steve Bennett might have said:
Wanda,
I just added a sata disk array in TSM v5.2 so I'll jump in here.
If you are using one disk partition in Windows for the device class then
you can let TSM define the number of vols it needs up to maxscr or out
of disk condition.
Storage pools consist of one or more volumes, generally disk or tape.
The storage pool gets its volumes via the device class which has a
maxscr setting to limit the volume count and max capacity to estimate or
assign the max size of the volume. The device class also points to a
directory which in
occasions, even when all files were on disk, tape mounts would occur
because the directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
OK, after spending a large portion
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers that
have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool. Even when none
the directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
- Original Message -
in a much faster backup. Now all that being said this new feature in V5.3
warrents new consideration. My new consideration is to stop using DIRMC
pools as the reason they were created in the first place has also long been
fixed.
Which reason is this that has been
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:29:50PM -0600, Rushforth, Tim wrote:
[DIRMC]
What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
Probably the fact that sequential volumes are written to in blocks of at
least 256 KB, even when the data is only 1500 bytes. This can cause a lot of
overhead, and the
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Andrew Raibeck
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 2:34 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: dirmc question
Jim, I don't know what goes on with my posts, but for some reason,
wherever I wrote an equal
On Jan 21, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Lepre, James wrote:
Jim, I don't know what goes on with my posts, but for some reason,
wherever I wrote an equal (=) sign, something somewhere tacked 3D
(the
ASCII hex code for '=') after it. ...
Though mail is two-dimensional, you may sometimes see the 3D. :-)
That's
Yes, TSM handles directory versioning the same as files.
What does
dsmc query backup c:\yourfoldername -subdir=yes -inactive
show you? (Substitute the folder name in question where I have
c:\yourfoldername.)
Go to http://search.adsm.org and do a search on
+raibeck +pit +gui +nolimit
For a
Andy,
Thanks for the reference. I was wondering if you could clarify your
point about the paramaters for verexists and verdeleted. You stated:
you can create a managment class for your directories with
VEREXISTS=3DNOLIMIT, VERDELETED=3DNOLIMIT, and RETEXTRA=3Dndays,
where 'ndays' is the number of
Jim, I don't know what goes on with my posts, but for some reason,
wherever I wrote an equal (=) sign, something somewhere tacked 3D (the
ASCII hex code for '=') after it. I won't pretend to understand how email
formats work, but I didn't put it there.
So wherever you see
xxx=3Dyyy
just read
And just to be really clear:
i.e. instead of VEREXISTS=3DNOLIMIT, it should be VEREISTS=NOLIMIT
is a typo the latter part should be VEREXISTS=NOLIMIT :-)
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/[EMAIL
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:02:08PM -0600, Stapleton, Mark wrote:
Storage pools that act as DIRMC management class destinations [...]
contain redundant data; the normal client data destination pool also
contains a copy of all directory and file structure data.
I wasn't aware of this. Is this
The server originally was set up with a large enough DIRPOOL
of type DISK. Later, DIRPOOL was reduced in size, and a
DIRFILE stgpool was added that consists of FILE volumes.
Clients still back up to DIRPOOL, but that pool is migrated
daily to DIRFILE.
Is this sort of setup still necessary
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Rushforth, Tim wrote:
Also, ADSM.QuickFacts says that sequential volumes have
advantages in a database restoral situation.
Yes. This is also documented in the 5.2/5.3 ADMIN guide describing
difference between DISK and FILE pools.
I asked this here,
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jurjen Oskam
I have a question about which devclass to use for a
storagepool that is exclusively used as DIRMC destination.
The server originally was set up with a large enough DIRPOOL
of type DISK. Later, DIRPOOL was reduced
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Ouzen
I am running Netware backups at night on disk and during the
day I migrate it to cartridge I am planning now to backups
those Novell 's client just on a storage disk.
For better performance I know backup my dirmc
://mail.giantcompany.com
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stapleton, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dirmc question
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Ouzen
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dirmc question
Hi Mark
Correct me if I am wrong you said that the information is also
stored in my standard disk stotage pool (after
Yes, setup two nodes for the box and set different DIRMC settings in
separate dsm.opt files.
If you do not want to deal with two nodes, the answer would be no.
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Marc Lowers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16.07.2003 17:24
Maybe, but in list archives definitely. Look at Tab Trepagnier's answer
from 16.12.2002 on the thread Setting up DIRMC seq pool on disk (you can
learn from other Tab's experiments alot).
Now in recent versions IBM claims that have fixed copypool reclamation
reading from primary random access
Jim,
if I'm reading everyhing right your option override should read: dirmc
dirmc
dirmc is the option you're setting and you want to point it to management
class dirmc
Jim Kirkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]@VM.MARIST.EDU on 04/29/2002 03:36:32 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:
Jim is correct that you are missing the management class name on the DIRMC
option.
I wanted to add, however, that you still may not see any volumes being
created in your dirdiskpool because unless they have extended ACLs or
exceptionally long path names, directory objects are stored exclusively
When I use DIRMC with a separate mgmt class and stgpool, I see data
immediately in that pool after backup is run. (Not a lot of GB of course,
but data is there). I have TSM server 4.2.1.10.
David Longo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/30/02 12:21PM
Jim is correct that you are missing the management
Scott,
So, are you saying that the option value should read dirmc dirmc? I thought that
once would be enough, given that the only thing to specify with this option is
mgmt class.
Thanks
Scott McCambly wrote:
Jim is correct that you are missing the management class name on the DIRMC
option.
Back in November you described this implementation, which makes a major
reduction in the time required to do a DIRMC offsite copy reclamation:
DIRPOOL primary DISK: NEXTPOOL-DIRFILE
DIRFILE primary SEQUENTIAL on DISK
DIRCOPYPOOL copypool TAPE
Would you mind posting the output from a:
I have a question concerning *SM directories. Back in the early days of
TSM we used the DIRMC option to put directories to disk rather that tape to
avoid "thrashing" issues on the tape devices. We are now running TSM 3.7.3
on OS/390 and I believe that the issue of having directories on tape has
David Beardsley
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (920) 721-6127
-Original Message-
From: William Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIRMC - disadvantages only?
Another disadvantage is r
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Joel Fuhrman
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIRMC - disadvantages only?
On DIRPOOL, what is the setting for "Cache Migrated Files"?
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, William Boyer wrote:
Another disadvantage is reclamation of th
Neat idea, Bill...
Thanx!
-Don
-Original Message-
From: William Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 7:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: DIRMC - disadvantages only?
Another disadvantage is reclamation of the copypool for the DIRMC
to the latest client, or add
SKIPNTPERMISSIONS YES to the DSM.OPT file on the client.
Bill Boyer
DSS, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
France, Don G (Pace)
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 4:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
al Message-
From: William Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: DIRMC - disadvantages only?
No. DIRMC is used for directories in OS's that have ACL (Access Control
Lists) assigned. Like NT permissions. The WIN32 c
And this goes along with my understanding which is that DIRMC was
invented solely for the purpose of segregating Novell backups since the
programmer on that client 'for some reason' didn't use the TSM (then
ADSM) database to store the directory structure but put it in the same
location as the
.
Win9x doesn't use the DIRMC.
Bill Boyer
DSS, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
arhoads
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIRMC - disadvantages only?
And this goes along with my
Hello all. When I saw this posting I was tempted to reply but knowing I
had a DR test coming in mid-NOV I figured I'd get some real life data about
DIRMC to share with everyone. I was not prepared for what happened.
Background:
Server TSM4.1.1 on AIX 4.3.3.6
Client TSM4.1.1 on AIX 4.3.3.6
I
When I issued a restore for any given FS, all of the dirs were recreated
(restored) WITHOUT any tapes being called for. The first mount didn't
occur until a data file was needed.
Signed confused.:-
Jochem - I think you missed some postings...
In file system types where the
1) Is the use of DIRMC obsolete?
Jochem - APAR IC24321 would partially make it seem that way; but consider
the case where the directory information is not incidentally on
the tape containing the data being restored, and thus would not be
encountered during restoral processing on that
I'm being told by the Unix administrator he is having a problem with "only
one" of his clients. Of the 10 clients he has, I have them all in the same
domain. In that domain there are 4 management classes so I've asked him to
add the line DIRMC to his dsm.sys file.
Why? Is this being confused
66 matches
Mail list logo
