Thanks Nick, that's what I was looking for.
I'm not sure why I couldn't figure out that SQL query on my own
I'll now start to make the wild guesses management is looking for... sigh
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Nicholas Cassimatis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Folks,
Management would like to know what kind of impact we would have on the volume
of data we have stored in TSM if we were to lower the retention periods. They are
expecting something like if we lower the 'retain only version' from 180days to 60
days we will free up X GB of
I had this happen once on one of my TSM servers running 5.1.5.2. It just
looked like the scheduler process on the TSM server gave up and didn't even try to
contact any of the clients.
I restarted the TSM services on the server and have not seen it since ( that
was about 2
Um... come on now. You can't just shoot it down without some explanation. Are
you a VAR that gets a commission for selling a different tape library or do you have
an actual reason for shooting down his idea?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Paul Bergh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a simple set of 'ndd' settings to get it hard-coded to 100 full. Here is
an example of both a hme and a qfe card
#Settings for hme0
ndd -set /dev/hme instance 0
ndd -set /dev/hme adv_100fdx_cap 1
ndd -set /dev/hme adv_10fdx_cap 0
ndd -set /dev/hme adv_10hdx_cap 0
ndd -set
set /dev/qfe adv_100hdx_cap 0
set /dev/qfe adv_autoneg_cap 0
Thomas R. Berning
8485 Broadwell Road
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Phone: 513-388-2857
Fax: 513-388-
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
My 2-cents
I've always read notes about OS mirroring V.S. TSM mirroring with interest. I
understand the arguments and they sure seem logical and scare me into thinking I need
to do TSM mirroring on my systems.
However, we have been running 8 TSM servers on AIX hosts
On the 3494, you set it up so that certain labels on the cartridges are seen
as cleaning tapes. (i.e. CLN*). If your new cleaning tapes match the pattern, then
there is nothing else to do. Perhaps your new cleaning tapes do not match the
cleaning tape mask and you need to adjust/add to
Just yesterday, I was exploring the problems within the summary table. I
actually called to support about certain client levels that report 0 bytes and I
ended up wading through other summary table issues that I was not aware of. Below
are the ones I looked at before finding a match for
At my site, a few of us call the TSM application our canary in a coal mine,
it typically the first indication of other possible problems on the host or network.
Sure, most of the time it is actually only the TSM client having issues, but in those
cases where we can't figure out why TSM
Interesting, I had not heard of the managedservices option and thought it
was only a netware thing. Surprise, it's on all client versions and looks like it's
been around since V 4.2. Once again I learn something new from the listserv
I have a few hosts with very large
Hmmm, an issue we all deal with in varying degrees...
Answer #1:
Yes, it will take longer to do your expire inventory. TSM will scan through
all the files looking for candidates, and performance is typically measured in X
thousand files examined in X seconds, the more files the
Folks,
We are looking at perhaps getting this small HP/AIT library to use for backups
at a remote site.
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/storageworks/ssl2020/index.html
I'm not finding it on the list of supported devices on this web page or in the
This has been discussed a few times if you look in the archives, but the
answer for copypool tapes that are offsite:
update vol access=readw
audit vol fix=yes
update vol access=offsite
No need to actually return the tape back to the library.
Ben
-Original
Interesting note about BMR. This might be old news, as the report is almost a
week old, but I don't recall seeing it sent out to the listserv.
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/252933.htm
Ben
Quick question:
Sometimes when we run the command archive /somedir/somefile*
-delete=yes, we have seen 2 different behaviors:
- We see that it archives 1 file then deletes it, archives the next
file, deletes it, etc.
- We see that it archives a bunch of files
We had to apply those changes to our TSM servers years ago. It
improved performance dramatically at the time.
After seeing that message though, I'm not sure it's necessary any
more
-Original Message-
From: PAC Brion Arnaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday,
Hmm, we've seen a somewhat similar message on some of our Solaris
hosts from time to time:
01/09/03 15:08:12 dlopen() of
/opt/tivoli/tsm/client/ba/bin/plugins/libPiIMG.so failed.
01/09/03 15:08:12 ld.so.1: dsmc: fatal: libApiDS.so: open failed: No such
file or directory.
OK,
You can install the 32-bit version on AIX5.1 and it will work. I had
to do this recently because the 64-bit client would core dump about every
other day. i.e. it would get part way through the incremental and then
core-dump.
Since I downgraded to the 32-bit version it seems to be
FYI... we just started getting the message on one of our servers
that's at 5.1.5.2. Yet another server at that level is not logging the
message... I guess I will log a call to let Tivoli know. It not a fatal
error, just annoying...
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Thach, Kevin
Ahh, this is an old problem that you can find in the archives. But
to save you the trouble, here is the fix.
The simple answer is a audit vol fix=yes but for a copypool tape, you need
a couple extra steps:
update vol $1 access=readw
audit vol $1 fix=yes
update vol $1 access=offsite
When I upgraded my server to 5.1.5.2, I had some Solaris clients at
a 3.1.0.7 version that would connect to the server, send data, but then not
cleanup. i.e. The session stays in a Run state with 0 in the Wait Time
column and would never disconnect. The only way to get rid of them was to
Not that we have seen. We have to use another scheduling tool on the
client to have the jobs kick off.
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Gill, Geoffrey L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ABC for VMS
Does this
Hmm, that link still works for me...
http://www.tivoli.com/support/public/Prodman/public_manuals/td/TD_PROD_LIST.
html
Perhaps a hiccup in a proxy server or some other internet anomaly?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Verkooijen [mailto:alexander;sara.nl]
Sent:
We are in the process of moving our 8 TSM servers from the
very-stable,I-never-wanna-change Version 4.1.4.0, to the
it-scares-me-to-death-to-change Version 5.
FYI, we have 8 TSM servers running on AIX 4.3.3 ML10, ~800 clients
(NT, AIX, Solaris, Linux VMS) running with TSM client
Paul D. Seay, Jr.
Technical Specialist
Naptheon Inc.
757-688-8180
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Script problems
Folks,
Just today, I upgraded from TSM 4.1 to TSM 5.1
Folks,
Just today, I upgraded from TSM 4.1 to TSM 5.1 This is an AIX host running
4.3.3 ML 10. Everything went smoothly. It even rebuilt the new path
configurations for the tapes and drives by itself. I didn't have the
cleanup backupset issue because this TSM server only backs up some
Great script for hunting down problem children backing up the
wrong stuff! At our site we have a lot of archives being pushed from hosts,
so I changed BACKUP to ARCHIVE and I get some great summary stats.
Kudos to Miles for a very helpful script. The one I was using to get
this
you win, ~sigh~... ;-(
The closest I came was this under-achiever ;-)
Volume Name Storage Device EstimatedPct Volume
Pool NameClass Name Capacity Util Status
(MB)
As with most TSM commands, are a million ways to skin this cat. Here
is a sql query I use:
select node_name, Filespace_name, (current_timestamp-backup_end)days as
days_since_backup from filespaces where
cast((current_timestamp-backup_end) days as decimal) =180 order by
days_since_backup
Yes, I believe that that's right, reclamations are one per
storagepool.
The only way I know to get around it is to write a script/select
statement to look for the tapes that are the least utilized and do a move
data on those tapes. I have not automated the process, but have a
you use to restore your
data.
I just need to know as I need to do set up a policy similar to the one you
require.
Thks
Sean Ramnarayan
EDS (South Africa)
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Good write up. Infact, it is what we are considering doing at this
point. The only question I have is about step 4. Why would you go through
and create another copy of everything? That would give me 2 copypool copies
of all the data. I guess you're going for a extra bit of CYA for a
Hmm, interesting idea. I'd too be interested to find out if it's
possible. I wonder if there might be some translation problems on TSM the
AIX side. Through the FC connection to the RS6000, it's going to need to
define multiple rmt devices. Would a standard 'cfgmgr' see the converter and
Folks,
I have a theoretical question about retaining TSM data in an unusual
way. Let me explain.
Lets say legal comes to you and says that we need to keep all TSM
data backed up to a certain date, because of some legal investigation
(NAFTA, FBI, NSA, MIB, insert your
/Dilbert
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Eternal Data retention brainstorming.
Folks,
I
Nope, that's not going to work, it will still error out.
This has been discussed recently in this forum and you should be
able to find a solution in the archives located at http://adsm.org
To give you a head start, it's a audit vol.. fix=yes command.
Ben
-Original
LOL ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Steinhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: adsm-l remove
-Original Message-
From: Pace, David K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How do I remove myself
If you don't
You say the backup has been running for 2 weeks. I guess the
question I would ask is, Are you getting a decent throughput? i.e. if you
do a 'q occ' 1 hour apart, are you getting a reasonable increase or are you
getting very little?. If you get very little data, I'd pursue analyzing the
Just to throw in another data point.
Here is that FTP done between an IBM S80 and an M80, both with GB
interfaces:
ftp put |dd if=/dev/zero bs=32k count=1 /dev/null
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening data connection for /dev/null.
1+0 records in.
1+0 records
We bumped into this also last week, although it was a 5 GB file. We
found that the users limits were set OK, but the root account somehow had
the fsize set to 4GB. When you run a TSM restore as the root user and
monitor it, you will see that it writes out the restored file as root and
We had this happen on some early version of TSM (4.1.2?). Tivoli had
us upgrade to 4.1.4 and then use this procedure to get the tapes back into
the proper state:
There have been several instances where volumes in a certain storage pool
are empty but the tape
Hmm...
All of our disk storage pools are larger than 2 GB and have large
files enabled because we do see files larger than 2GB come in from
clients...
I'm quite sure I'm not going to want to slice up a 36Gb disk into 18
2GB filesystems just to use direct I/O. I think the
Wait a second.
So, lets say I set up a management class with the archive copypool
set to 5 years and I archive a bunch of files. A couple of years later,
legal comes to me and says, laws have changed, we now need to keep those
files for 10 years. I have been under the false
to 1 month
rather than create a new group called 1_Month. Creating a new group would do
nothing for the existing 3_Month group. I know I changed one of my archive
groups from infinite to 1 year and saw tapes start to reclaim...
Mark
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL
Um... Am I missing something here... This seems to have nothing to
do with TSM...
Why is it being posted here?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Monit Kapoor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Migration from DLT to
Hey, careful, some of us love the IBM LVM and find Veritas
cumbersome and overly confusing. :-)
While we are on the subject, we recently brought up our first TSM
server on Solaris (our other 10 are on AIX) and had a question as to the
disk setup. VxFs and VxVm are available to be
We have 1GB adapters in all 7 of our RS/6000 TSM servers and have
them set at Auto_Negotiation, as that's the only choice. We have had no
problems with the throughput or duplex mis-matches that we see on the 10/100
adapters. Your mileage may vary, as it may depend on the network equipment
We are hooking a new IBM 3583 tape library up to a Solaris
host to be a remote site TSM server. The Ultrium drives have various
/dev/?st... devices through which we can access them. The no-brainer was to
use the driver that tells the drive to compress the data, but I'm not sure
Wow, that's quite a sad tale. You have my condolences.
I've had very little experience on Netbackup, but it's periodically
brought up in meetings. The claim of some folks is that on functions where
the TSM server software is weak (i.e. long restore times on filesystems that
are
The upgrade of the OS caused us a grief a couple of times. Here's
the note from the readme:
**
* Possible performance degradation due to threading *
/tivolieoc.html
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Product life cycle?
Quick question:
Where is that little matrix that shows the end-of-life cycle for all
the older TSM versions? I
Quick question:
Where is that little matrix that shows the end-of-life cycle for all
the older TSM versions? I always have a hard time finding it, and am trying
to figure out when my TSM 4.1 servers will have to be upgraded to 4.2.
Thanks,
Ben
As yet another example of the numerous ways to do the same task in
unix. Here's a simple script I wrote a while back to do the same task:
for i in $( dsmadmc -se=xxx -id=xxx -password=xxx select PROCESS_NUM from
processes where PROCESS like 'Space Reclamation' |grep '[0-9]'
How about this question: We have some NT clients still running the V
3.1.0.7 client, (I know, no longer supported, but you know how customers can
be). They are below the versions mentioned, but the 3.1 versions are not
explicitly discussed.
Will they do a full backup or not?
to find the tapes that are free-agents
mtlib -l /dev/lmcp0 -q I |grep FF00
To eject the tapes from the library:
mtlib -l /dev/lmcp0 -C -V TAPE# -t FF10
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Bierman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:49 AM
To:
Currently, 2 of our hosts have 2 TSM servers on them. We did it this
way to keep database growth down to a reasonable level.
Here are some of my personal notes from the last time we did it.
Note that it was back in the ADSM days, so the paths will need changing, but
the variable
Up till now, we have only bought IBM 3494 tape libraries for our TSM
environment. Well, we are looking at putting in a smaller installation at a
remote site and are considering purchasing an HP SureStor 2/20 or an IBM
Ultrium L18.
First of all, any comments on which would be the
Your experience is the same as ours. We encounter the same thing on
some HACMP pairs when we roll services between the hosts. It took us a while
to figure out why some would fail and others not, but we eventually found
that the encrypted password would not work on the a host whenever we
This was discussed a while back and you should be able to search it
in the archives. But, in a nut shell, your suggestion is what we did in our
case. We had our developers write scripts that tar up the many little files
in some logical fashion (by date, by directory, by part type, etc.)
Hmm, we have about a dozen tapes in this state that are empty but not empty.
We have even brought the tapes back on site and tried the 'audit vol...
fix=yes' command on them and they still are not getting cleared up. We have
opened a call with Tivoli but they have yet to be able to fix it. We are
I've seen all the replies and they are all good, but I don't think
they will solve your problem. I think the most telling problem is that when
you run backups individually, they work great, but when you have multiple
sessions and processes running at the same time, they all seem to bog
I'll take a stab at a possible solution if you haven't found a
solution yet.
As we upgraded our ADSM servers to latter versions of the OS and the
TSM server software, we experienced significant slowdowns on the system
especially when there were multiple sessions or processes
I second this issue. These puppies are a real problem to get
labeled. We have our IBM CE check that we had the latest and greatest
drivers installed (tape drive microcode, Atape drivers, atldd software), but
the problem persists.
In our case, we also seem to have a higher
Yes, the 'overwrite=yes' option was used every time. It just seems
to stubbornly fail until it decides to work a few tries later... These tapes
are possessed I tell you, pure evil. ;-)
Ben Bullock
Unix system manager
Micron Technology Inc.
-Original Message-
From: David
I agree with all the points in the list except one. On #5, we have
been required by Tivoli to purchase one server license (and the other
required network enabler etc) for each instance of the server software we
are running on a host. Yes it is using the same binaries, hardware, network,
Are you getting this pkthread error on NT servers?
Ben Bullock
Unix system manager
Micron Technology Inc.
-Original Message-
From: LeBlanc, Patricia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dr. Watson in NT after
OK, I'll bite. We don't use the TDB client, we use home grown
scripts that use the standard TSM archive client, but I believe the
bottleneck in your case was the same as mine.
The bottleneck in your scenario is the 100Mb Ethernet interface. In
our testing, we find that a TSM
Alright,
One of my intrepid coworkers opened a case with Tivoli about this
error. I'll attach the e-mail from them, but in a nutshell:
- This is an error only being seen on AIX clients.
- "This problem has been observed at 4.1.1 and 3.7.2.X levels including
patch level 3.7.2.15."
Interesting,
We too have over 70 AIX clients on our TSM server, but I have 1
client that coughs the same error about once a week:
03/11/01 16:00:11 B/A Txn Consumer thread, fatal error, signal 11
03/11/01 16:00:11 0xD01D0BA0 shadow_pass_r
03/11/01 16:00:11 0xD01D08C8
Good questions Gil,
I too have a similar TSM environment and have similar questions.
I have fiddled around a little with backupsets to see how they might
be used in our environment. One of the first things I noticed was that to
make a backupset, it took about an hour to
-117
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit our site: http://www.nestle.com
This message is intended only for the use of the
addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
-Original Message-
From: bbullock [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
Our experience with it was good and bad. Our platform was an AIX
ADSM server and AIX HSM clients. When it worked, it worked pretty well, but
when it broke, it broke bad. In all fairness, we were running in a not
recommend environment: on hosts with many millions of files in an HA
Whew, that's a lot of questions. I'll chime in on how we handle
them.
Ben Bullock
UNIX Systems Manager
-Original Message-
From: Krishna Shastry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Guidance
Hi Gurus,
Our
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:21:34PM -0700, bbullock wrote:
...
How many files? Well, I have one Solaris-based host
that generates
500,000 new files a day in a deeply nested directory
structure (about 10
levels deep with on
Files vs. Small Files
Hello ,
did you check -fromdate and -fromtime ( and -totime and
-todate ) restore
parameters ?
Regards
Petr
- Puvodn zprva -
Od: "bbullock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Komu: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Odeslno: 21. nora 2001 1:16
Predmet: Re: Perform
Jeff,
You hit the nail on the head of what is the biggest problem I face
with TSM today. Excuse me for being long winded, but let me explain the boat
I'm in, and how it relates to many small files.
We have been using TSM for about 5 years at our company and have
finally
]
Subject: Re: Performance Large Files vs. Small Files
Ben
bbullock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21/02/2001 8:21:34
Big Snip
This one nightmare host now has over 20 million files (and an
unknown number of directories) across 10 filesystems. We have
found from
experience, that any more than
First, our environment: various versions of RS/6000s running, AIX
4.3.3, IBM 3490 libraries and 3590 drives.
We just did it on our 8 adsm servers. The process was pretty much as
described in the manual. Make sure your OS, Atape and atldd drivers are at
the required levels. You
Woah, woah woah, I think you are talking 2 different things here.
I believe the question being asked is "Can the single length 3590
tapes (denoted by a 'j' on them) co-exist in a library with the new extended
length tapes (denoted by a 'k' on them)?" I believe that the answer is
You will have to enter in the licenses on the new server so it can
built it's own license file. Just use the "register lic file=/usr/lpp/"
command.(Of course, after you have made sure you have paid Tivoli the $$$
required for 2 ADSM server licenses, etc... :-))
Ben
-Original
->
All Time Record for Amount of data on one 3590 K Cartridge
adsm-l
-- Thread --
-- Date --
Find
Re: All Time Record for Amount of data on one 3590 K Cartridge,
bbullock
All Time Record for Amo
82 matches
Mail list logo
