Hi Don, The problem with the ISC-AC health-monitor wouldn't happen to be with the server status showing unknown would it? That's the issue we have.
Thanks for any response! ISC - 6.0.1 ITSM - Admin Center 5.3.2.0 TSM 5.3.2.1 Don France wrote: > Hey Allen, > > I have your phone (from Oxford); still OWE you , big time; let me know > where to send you (at least) the donera that was on it, and if you want the > phone back! Contact me off the list (please), with your addr, eh!?! > > The ISC-AC still sucks (at its latest 5.3.2.0 release, I had some difficulty > with health-monitor, but fixed it -- the part that sets me "off" now is the > maint. plan; it forced and re-forced the "parallel" copy-pools when what I > wanted was to merge two primaries into a single, offsite copy-pool -- sigh:). > > Maybe you're right; TSM is too diverse in its installed environments and the > admins that support it. But, I gotta say, the old GUI was fine (for some > tasks), just needed some minor improvements --- like quit collapsing the > whole tree of policy constructs, so I can change more than one MC without 7 > mouse-clicks. The IDEA is good, to get a single interface to multiple TSM > servers, but it sure loses something in the translation to implementation... > not to mention the Websphere issues you mention! > > Best regards, > Don > > Don France > email: don_france at att_dot_net > > -------------- Original message from "Allen S. Rout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -------------- > > > >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:28:06 -0500, Richard Mochnaczewski > > said: > > > > > > > I had some problems with the setup of the Admin Console. I placed a > > > call with IBM, [...] > > > > > > The ranting about the ISC was legion in Oxford, and clearly a source > > of frustration for the IBMers there; there were many questions or > > "I-want" type statements which were answered with "We're doing that in > > the Admin Console". It's clear that they've placed a lot of effort > > and thought into the AC design. > > > > I'm starting to think that we, TSM admins, are just too varied a bunch > > to have our needs met within the constraints of one such system and > > the ideology that must be imposed with it. Maybe IBM can just ditch > > the GUI idea entirely, and leave the market to the 3rd party tools. > > Or maybe they can ditch the idea that the GUI is 'full featured', and > > deploy something intended to coddle folks who are never going to make > > the effort, and omit the hard bits. > > > > > > > > I'm in sympathy with the desire to web-ify many administrative aspects > > of many IBM tools under a unified umbrella. But the One Ring to Rule > > Them All attitude has well-documented failure modes, and nobody wants > > to be Sauron at the end. > > > > It gets worse when the One Ring is as (pardon me) shaky and > > unmaintainable as Websphere. We've had deep, deep _DEEP_ problems > > with that product. A low point was when a level 2 tech in all > > seriousness told us he wasn't sure the product supported HTTP. > > > > No, really. I can't make that up. Our tech replied that maybe they > > should change the product name to just "Sphere". > > > > I've been through the AIX install of the ISC and AC on a disposable > > LPAR several times now; even with a fresh clean box and support on the > > line, we've not been able to get a working console up, which I find > > more amusing than irritating, any more. > > > > > > > > - Allen S. Rout
