Automatic digest processor wrote:
>
> Subject: ADSM-L Digest - 23 Oct 2001 to 24 Oct 2001 (#2001-290)
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:01:40 -0400
> From: Automatic digest processor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Recipients of ADSM-L digests <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> There are 88 messages totalling 7053 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. oracle backup(linux) (3)
> 2. Mount point reserved
> 3. Netware groupwise exclude lists (3)
> 4. rman question
> 5. DiskXtender 2000 experience (2)
> 6. Second try : Informix XPS 8.31specialist needed ...
> 7. TSM v4.2.1
> 8. tsm 4.2.1 licensing
> 9. Antw: Re: include a mounted file system
> 10. Cache Hit % dropping on NT (2)
> 11. ANS1312E Server media mount not possible
> 12. Unavailable tape drive on AIX (3)
> 13. Antwort: FYI: Another shop with the archive hang problem... RE:
> hang ar
> chive (dsmc) on Sun Solaris
> 14. FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients (2)
> 15. Include/exclude for TDP Lotus Domino
> 16. SAN Environment (5)
> 17. ANR8214E when TSM Scheduler service is not started
> 18. SQL-manual (3)
> 19. TSM 4.2 on linux with german chars
> 20. Migration from AIX to Solaris (3)
> 21. SAP R/3 on a SAN (4)
> 22. If tape in SCSI library gets damaged
> 23. Length of database audit and other migration lessons...
> 24. ANR0480W - client connection severed...
> 25. Export/import problem
> 26. Retry: Server Clientoptionset Confusion
> 27. Retry: Server Clientoptionset Confusion - Part II (3)
> 28. Restore with 2 or more drives at the same time ???
> 29. RE. directory recovery question
> 30. Educational Licencing Question (3)
> 31. David Browne/Louisville/Humana is out of the office.
> 32. Return Code Changes with V4.2.1 TSM Clients (2)
> 33. Client and AIX mirrored disks... (4)
> 34. How do I find out which volume a File is on (2)
> 35. no-query restore
> 36. command schedule'n by admin schedule (2)
> 37. manually ejecting a tape from a 3494 library (9)
> 38. TSM 4.2.x on AIX 4.3.3 (2)
> 39. database backup expiration
> 40. Netware restores and backup sets
> 41. DRM (Disaster Recovery Manager) (2)
> 42. TSM.PWD (2)
> 43. 4.1.5.* (2)
> 44. deleting copy pool volumes... (2)
> 45. manually ejecting a tape from a 3494 library: Standard across all
> platforms
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: oracle backup(linux)
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:09:01 +0900
> From: 1h@N?1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Is there tdp for oracle(linux)??
> If so, what is the procedure for backing up oracle??
>
> server: solaris 2.6
> client: redhat 6.2
>
> Thanks in advance..
>
> CD DATA CORP. IDC TEAM. KIM IN YOP
> 14th Floor,Sam Jung Bldg.
> 237-11,Nonhyun-Dong,Gangnam-Gu,
> Seoul,Korea 135-831
> TEL: 82-2-546-3108
> MOBILE: 016 523-2032
> FAX: 82-2-514-9007
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Mount point reserved
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:24:38 -0700
> From: Kelly Lipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This appears to be new functionality in 4.2.1.0. It shows up in a q
> mount
> command. You will see what drives are mounted in addition to this new
> stuff
> that shows mount reservations. That is some other process that is
> waiting
> for the mount point has a mount point reservation. I'm guessing this
> will
> play a rather important role in tape and library sharing and now we
> can see
> it. It would be even better if it described which process has the
> mount
> point reserved.
>
> Kelly J. Lipp
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> PO Box 51313
> Colorado Springs, CO 80949
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.storsol.com or www.storserver.com
> (719)531-5926
> Fax: (240)539-7175
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Netware groupwise exclude lists
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:44:18 +1000
> From: Steve Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Would anyone running groupwise under novell be willing to share your
> include/exclude lists?
>
> I'm about to start backing up this environment and need a kick start.
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve Harris
> AIX and TSM Admin
> Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential
> and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This
> confidentiality
> is not waived or lost if you receive it and you are not the intended
> recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/ received in error.
>
> Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review
> of this e-mail is prohibited. It may be subject to a statutory duty
> of
> confidentiality if it relates to health service matters.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this
> e-mail in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by
> telephone or by return e-mail. You should also delete this e-mail
> message and destroy any hard copies produced.
> **********************************************************************
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: rman question
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:26:28 +0800
> From: Steve de Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have increased the 'filesperset' from 1 to 5, then 20. On both
> occasions,
> this has caused
> both tapes to be active all the time.
> Just what I was after.
> thanks muchly
> steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neil Rasmussen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 23 October, 2001 9:44 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: rman question
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Rman will hold all channels until it finishes it processesing on the
> > entire backup job. Rman usually does a good job making sure that the
> > channels get equal amount of work but you can imagine that in some
> > instances the majority of the work load goes to one channel. For
> instance:
> > channel t1 backs up the control file and several small datafiles
> that
> > equal 100mb while channel t2 gets a datafile (maybe the remaining
> backup
> > piece) that is 700mb. In this case channel t1 will have finished
> long
> > before channel t2 and then Rman holds the resources of t1 until t2
> > completes.
> >
> >
> > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:50:23 +0800
> > From: Steve de Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: rman question
> >
> > Hi there
> >
> > I use tdp for oracle 2.2 on a tsm4.2 server
> > I allocate 2 channels for the rman backup, t1 and t2
> > when the backup starts, it initially starts to write to 2
> tapes.
> > After a short while, one drive goes idle and the other tape
> > continually gets written to, till completion of the backup.
> >
> > Anyone have any idea as to what is causing one the tapes to
> go
> > idle?
> >
> > The backup files aren't very big.
> > channels t1 and t2 continue to get 'allocated' to completion
> if
> > the
> > job.
> > The mountretention on the devc is big.
> > what else could I check?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > steve
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil Rasmussen
> > Software Development
> > TDP for Oracle
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> **************************************************************************
> Bunnings Legal Disclaimer:
>
> 1) This document is confidential and may contain legally
> privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient you must
> not
> read, copy, distribute or act in reliance on it.
> If you have received this document in error, please telephone
> us immediately on (08) 9365-1555.
>
> 2) All e-mails sent to and sent from Bunnings Building Supplies
> are
> scanned for content. Any material deemed to contain
> inappropriate
> subject matter will be reported to the e-mail administrator of
> all parties concerned.
>
> **************************************************************************
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: DiskXtender 2000 experience
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:43:23 +0200
> From: Daniel Sparrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hello Kai
>
> We have it running on several W2K fileservers, and it works great.
>
> One thing that we have found out though, is that the DiskXtender
> client opens one session for each media folder.
>
> Therefore, you should be careful with how many mediafolders you create
> on each machine.
>
> For example, you have shares that look like this:
>
> \shares\documents
>
> \shares\home
>
> \shares\common
>
> In this case, it would be smarter to create a media folder for the
> \share directory, instead
>
> of creating media folder for each subdirectory(\shares\documents and
> so on).
>
> But overall, it works great.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Daniel Sparrman
>
> -----------------------------------
> Daniel Sparrman
> Exist i Stockholm AB
> Bergkdllavdgen 31D
> 192 79 SOLLENTUNA
> Vdxel: 08 - 754 98 00
> Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Second try : Informix XPS 8.31specialist needed ...
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:55:17 +0200
> From: PAC Brion Arnaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi *SM'ers,
>
> We recently intalled a new version of an informix server (XPS 8.31) on
> our AIX system (4.3.3), and are planing to use TDP for informix V
> 4.1.3
> to backup this system, in conjunction with our TSM 4.1.3 server.
>
> My first question is : does anybody knows if this version of TDP is
> compatible with my version of informix (Tivoli web site says yes, but
> the readme file on cdrom doesn't mention Informix XPS 8.31 at all :
> who
> should I trust ?)
>
> Second question : I already installed TDP for informix, and
> parametered
> it as I usually do with other versions of informix, but when I try to
> start informix, I get the following output in bar_act_log file :
>
> [001] 15:57:51 WARNING: LOG_BACKUP_MODE is set to MANUAL, but there is
> no storage manager configured. You must configure a storage manager or
> your server will eventually hang.
> Does anybody knows what is happening, and eventually what to do to
> correct the problem ?
> Any form of help would be greatly appreciated ;-))
> Thanks in advance !
> Arnaud
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> | Arnaud Brion, Panalpina Management Ltd., IT Group |
> | Viaduktstrasse 42, P.O. Box, 4002 Basel - Switzerland |
> | Phone: +41 61 226 19 78 / Fax: +41 61 226 17 01 |
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: TSM v4.2.1
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:12:20 +0200
> From: Henk ten Have <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 23-Oct-01 Bill Mansfield wrote:
> > I heard second-hand that the license registration bug wasn't going
> to be
> > fixed until TSM 5.x. Can anyone out there confirm?
>
> I hope not. Last 24 hours we had again > 100000 ANR2841W messages.
> And another thing I noticed about v4.2.1 AIX, our server becomes
> slower and
> slower everyday. I'm thinking of restart the server everyday....
>
> Cheers,
> Henk (not amused)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: tsm 4.2.1 licensing
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:19:25 +0200
> From: Henk ten Have <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 23-Oct-01 ORNESS wrote:
> > Tivoli told me that an APAR is opened but you can work with your
> server NOT
> > IN COMPLIANCE...
>
> Except that I think your server becomes slower and slower every minut.
> Maybe the
> fact that we'r doing mayor HSM-filesystem restore's from one box to
> another box
> in a SAN caused these problems. Not to mention about all the ANR1401W
> messages we get during the day.
>
> Cheers,
> Henk.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Antw: Re: include a mounted file system
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:20:34 +0100
> From: Wolfgang Herkenrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> thats my mistake. Now the incremental run like I want.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> >>> Bill Colwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 23.10.01 22:23:54 >>>
> You need to add directory wildcarding to your statements.
> For example, include /usr/sap/P02/trans/.../* D30
>
> hope this helps,
>
> --
> --------------------------
> Bill Colwell
> C. S. Draper Lab
> Cambridge, Ma.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/23/01
> at 05:23 PM, Wolfgang Herkenrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Hi all,
>
> >TSM-Server 4.1.4.0 on OS390
> >AIX-Client 4.2.0.0
>
> >I have a little problem with an include statement for an file system.
> >I want to do incremental backups of this system. To do this with a
> spezial managementclass, I do the following include
> >statements at my dsm.sys file:
>
> >include /usr/sap/P02/trans/* D30
> >include /etc/* 7tage
> >include /var/spool/cron/crontabs/* 7tage
> >include /home/lvrtrans/* D30
> >include /home/lvrsend/* D30
> >include /home/lvrpool/sapp02.hr* 6JAHRE
> >include /home/lvrpool/hr_out* 6JAHRE
> >include /home/lvrtrans/mvs.hr04 6JAHRE
>
> >The mounted file system is the /usr/sap/P02/trans.
> >There are no exclude statements in the dsm.sys file.
>
> >Every time I do the incremental backup of this directory all files
> are backed up. Thats not what incremental is made
> >for. I looked at the backed up files with q backup and saw, that the
> defaultmanagementclass was taken instead of the
> >class I had said in the dsm.sys file.
>
> >I test a littlebit and found, that when I set the whole path to a
> file and backed up the file the correct
> >managementclass was taken.
>
> >For example, if I set the include statement
>
> >include /usr/sap/P02/trans/upgrade/T02/46C/umodstat.dat D30
>
> >and then do dsmc -inc /usr/sap/P02/trans/upgrade/T02/46C/umodstat.dat
>
> >all runs correct.
>
> >It also runs correct if I set the include statement to
> > include /usr/sap/P02/trans/upgrade/T02/46C/* D30
>
> >But when I tried
> >include /usr/sap/P02/trans/upgrade/T02/*
>
> >the default managementclass was taken.
>
> >The other include statements work.
> >I tried different positions of the include statement but it doesn't
> help.
>
> >Has anyone an idea what I'm doing wrong?
>
> >THX, Wolfgang
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Cache Hit % dropping on NT
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:36:29 -0000
> From: Pitur Ey~srsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What platform are you running on you4re server. Is there any other
> applications on your server witch could be pulling resorurces.
>
> If you are using AIX, then is the database on one pv or spread across
> multiple.Where on the pv is the lv witch you are keeping youre
> database, it
> does matter when perfomance tuning, although i don4t think it would
> matter
> to the SELFTUNESIZE.
>
> Kvedja/Regards
> Petur Eythorsson
> Taeknimadur/Technician
> IBM Certified Specialist - AIX
> Tivoli Storage Manager Certified Professional
> Microsoft Certified System Engineer
>
> Nyherji Hf Simi TEL: +354-569-7700
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 105 Iceland
> URL: http://www.nyherji.is
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MORGAN TONY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:54 AM
> Subject: Cache Hit % dropping on NT
>
> > Dear *SMers,
> >
> > I am running TSM V4.1.1.0 on an NT box.
> >
> > For 10 months I have had not problem with Cache Hit @ 98-99% with
> > SELFTUNEBUFSIZE on.
> >
> > In the last 2 weeks the Cache hit rate has dropped dramatically.. I
> have
> > manually raised the BUFPOOLSIZE base setting from 32768 in stages to
> 43008
> > and the Cache seems fine for a short while, then drops off again.
> >
> > Is this a sign of a database about to die, or something else
> horrible?????
> >
> > I would appreciate some help!!
> >
> > One thing that did happen... about a month ago the server was
> rebuilt by a
> > TSM consultant (yes! I know) and he rebuilt the database into 1 file
> rather
> > than my 5 files of similar size... He said that I had got it wrong!
> (I am
> > sceptical - as I am old enough to be his father and was tuning
> databases
> > before he started on solid food!!!)
> >
> > Any Ideas??
> >
> > Many Thanks
> >
> > Tony Morgan
> > Fortis Bank UK
> >
> > ============================================================
> >
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the addressee. The content of this
> > e-mail may have been changed without the consent of the originator.
> > The information supplied must be viewed in this context. If you have
> > received this e-mail in error please notify our Helpdesk by
> > telephone on +44 (0) 20-7444-8444. Any use, dissemination,
> > forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail or its attachments
> is
> > strictly prohibited.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: ANS1312E Server media mount not possible
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:07:26 +0200
> From: Paul Gomersbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Rolf Meyer wrote:
>
> Thats Q OPT
>
> > Hallo
> > in the tsm dsmc client you can use the command SHOW OPT (I didn't
> find any
> > docs, tip from our support in Germany) and you will get a complete
> list of
> > all options.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Rolf Meyer
> >
> > On Thursday, 11. October 2001 21:10, you wrote:
> > > How do I check to see what my Resourceutilization is currently set
> to?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rolf Meyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:41 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: ANS1312E Server media mount not possible
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 11. October 2001 18:54, you wrote:
> > > Hallo,
> > >
> > > I saw this message very often because I defined
> > > MaxMountPoints = 1 and Resourceutilization = 4.
> > > Changed Resourceutil. to the default (which is two).
> > >
> > > Greetings from Hamburg
> > >
> > > Rolf Meyer
> > >
> > > > I got the following error in the scheduling of our servers
> this
> > > > morning:
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Total number of bytes transferred: 5.22 GB
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Data transfer time: 580.46 sec
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Network data transfer rate: 9,432.76 KB/sec
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Aggregate data transfer rate: 3,792.61
> KB/sec
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Objects compressed by: 0%
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 Elapsed processing time: 00:02:03
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 --- SCHEDULER STATUS END
> > > >
> > > > 10/10/2001 19:01:04 ANS1312E Server media mount not
> > > > possible<---------------------------------------------??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I also saw it yesterday on a couple of other servers. The logs
> for those
> > > > servers are fine now.
> > > >
> > > > I'm running 4.1 on the TSM server and all the clients involved
> are also
> > > > 4.1. We have been running 4.1 for about 3-4 months and this is
> first time
> > > > I've seen something like this come up.
> > > >
> > > > I looked over the website at http://search.adsm.org/
> > > > <http://search.adsm.org/> and I didn't see anything helpful.
> Most of
> > >
> > > what
> > >
> > > > I saw was in relation to going from version 3.x to version 4.1.
> We've
> > > > been 4.1 for awhile now before the error started to show up so I
> don't
> > > > see a relationship.
> > > >
> > > > We send the data to a diskpool first and then in the morning
> everything
> > > > gets sent to tape.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > David Tyree
> > > > Microcomputer Specialist
> > > > South Georgia Medical Center
> > > > 229.333.1155
> > > >
> > > > Confidential Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is
> > > > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> > > > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use,
> > > > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended
> > > > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all
> > > > copies of the original message.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Unavailable tape drive on AIX
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:20:54 +0200
> From: Paul Gomersbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Even after restarting the TSM server we still cannot redefine the
> drive (we
> > > get the same error message).
> > > We have managed to delete and redefine one of our other tape
> drives.
> > >
> > > Has anyone got any suggestions about this error and how we can
> redefine our
> > > drive?
> >
> > Robert, it probably sounds silly, but restarting (i.e. power the
> robot off
> > and on) did help us. Some time ago we had the same problem, except
> that it
> > was a 3590 drive in a 3494 library.
> >
>
> I had the same problem on a 3584 library, it was fixed after a
> firmware upgrade.
>
> Paul Gomersbach
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Antwort: FYI: Another shop with the archive hang problem... RE: hang
> ar chive (dsmc) on Sun Solaris
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:30:19 +0100
> From: Gerd Bentel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi Ike,
>
> about your question, how many archives we do a day? I will send you
> tomorrow the answer.
> Please, can you send me the solution, if IBM fix the problem. Thank
> you
>
> Gerd Bentel
>
> Sparkassen Informatik GmbH & Co. KG
> Standort Fellbach
> Datenhaltung-Middleware
> Wilhelm-Pfitzer-Str. 1
> 70736 Fellbach
> Telefon: (0711) 5722-2142
> Telefax: (0711) 5722-1630
> Mailadr.: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:14:50 -0400
> From: Mark Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/23 4:41 AM >>>
> I thing about the list as a place I may get *SOME* support from the
> colleagues around the world. But I may not get it. Since I am
> subscribed to
> the list there were several posts "are my posts going through" or
> "yesterday I posted but got no answer so am posting again". All people
> here
> are helping on voluntary basis. And IBM/Tivoli people are dealing
> intensively with ADSM/TSM and can help in more cases than ordinary
> user.
> However they can present in the list only personal opinions not the
> official position of the company. Or the company can reject his
> statements
> at any time (or change, or interpret in other way, etc.) pointing they
> are
> not official. If for example Andy writes here that TSM 5 will come on
> first
> day of 2002 for me this is not official until we see a letter of
> intention
> on www.ibmlink.ibm.com that the product will be announced on 3-rd of
> January 2002. And even then this might change.
> So for me anything written here by Andrew Raibeck, David McClelland,
> Del
> Hobler, Holger Speh, Kavita Shah, Matthew Bacchi, Thiha Than, William
> Degli-Angeli is just their personal help on technical aspects but does
> not
> bind the IBM Corp. in any way. They post to the list from their e-mail
> address at work (period).
> Yes, Andy, you are right that this my position is very strict. We are
> colleagues, you are working for some company (e-e-e .... let's say IBM
> :-)
> and we meet we can have a beer together (I would be happy to do this)
> but
> this does not mean it's company's policy to drink beer with a customer
> ;-)
> And let's help together to do the things better!
>
> Regards
>
> Zlatko Krastev
> IT Concultant
>
> Andrew Raibeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 22.10.2001 23:38:36
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
>
> Subject: Re: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
>
> > When I signed onto this list there was a specific statement, which
> > effectively said, the postings by IBM/Tivoli staff are *NOT* an
> > official answer from IBM/Tivoli. So as Zlatko Krastev wrote, they
> > are a more skilled colleague.
>
> My ADSM-L subscription info does not contain any such statement,
> although
> it may have changed since the last time I subscribed. But your and
> Zlatko's interpretation is a pretty rigid one that I don't think is
> quite
> in the spirit of what any such statement was intended to convey. Yes,
> to
> an extent we are all colleagues in the computer profession,
> specifically
> in the area of storage management and TSM. On the other hand, our
> relationship is also that of customer and vendor, and it is from this
> latter view that I -- and I think I am safe in saying, my fellow TSM
> developers -- participate. Notwithstanding the facts that our
> participation is voluntary and ADSM-L is not an official IBM support
> channel, when we do participate, it is as "IBM", just as my signature
> information indicates.
>
> FYI, the TSM client README contains a more elaborate version of the
> statement that Zlatko quoted, and is more in keeping with the spirit
> of
> the conditions of our participation:
>
> - To participate in user discussions of Tivoli Storage Manager you
> can
> subscribe to the ADSM-L list server. This is user forum maintained
> by
> Marist College and subscribed to by more than 1,500 users (at the
> time of this writing). While not officially supported by IBM,
> Tivoli
> Storage Manager developers and other IBM support staff also
> participate
> on an informal, best-effort basis. Because this is not an official
> IBM
> support channel, you should contact IBM Technical Support if you
> require
> a response specifically from IBM. Otherwise there is no guarantee
> that
> IBM will respond to your question on the list server.
>
> I hopes this helps to clarify things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Raibeck
> IBM Software Group
> Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
> Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
> The command line is your friend.
> "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
> When I signed onto this list there was a specific statement, which
> effectively said, the postings by IBM/Tivoli staff are *NOT* an
> official
> answer from IBM/Tivoli. So as Zlatko Krastev wrote, they are a more
> skilled
> colleague.
>
> For official answers call the 800 number or search the web.
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote:
>
> > Hi Zlatko!
> > Andrew Raibeck is a person from TSM Development at Tivoli. So his
> statements
> > are in fact Tivoli statements, unless otherwise specified, that is.
> > Kindest regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> > KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zlatko Krastev/ACIT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 16:29
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
> >
> >
> > First of all I do not know Andy's position at Tivoli.
> > And read what is written in the README:
> > "This is not officially supported by IBM, but IBM support people
> > do participate in the discussions, along with other users."
> > So IMHO here Andy is just a colleague. More skilled in ADSM/TSM,
> closer
> to
> > the developers, but just a colleague.
> > If something shows up on the web-site or in docs on media that would
> be
> > official.
> >
> > Zlatko Krastev
> > IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 19.10.2001
> 17:57:48
> > Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> >
> > Subject: Re: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
> >
> > Andrew Raibeck answered "I am almost certain that this change in
> behavior
> > is
> > not deliberate. The APAR is going to be handled as a code defect"
> > Isn't that you'r Tivoli official answer?
> > Kindest regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> > KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zlatko Krastev/ACIT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:29
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
> >
> >
> > This was already discussed in the list. Look for the thread "Windows
> client
> > behavior change at 4.2.1.0" and answer of Andrew Raibeck from
> 9.10.2001.
> > But it is possible that Andy and this Bob are just having different
> > PERSONAL opinions. We still do not have answer from any Tivoli
> official, do
> > we?
> >
> > Zlatko Krastev
> > IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Subash, Chandra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 18.10.2001 07:41:31
> > Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> >
> > Subject: FW: v4.2.1 TSM Clients
> >
> > i HAVE GOT THIS EMAIL FROM ONE OF MY FRIENDS. GUYS WHAT DO YOU THINK
> IS
> IT
> > TRUE ?
> >
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > According to Tivoli Support they have made an alteration to way
> client
> > v4.2.1 reports Result code 4 to the server. Earlier version clients
> would
> > allow for a certain number of files to fail during the backup and
> still
> > report to the server that the Schedule was successful. However
> version
> > 4.2.1
> > has been altered so that a result cod
