Richard,
We don't use the DIRMc option, because our policies are simple
enough that the default management class is the right place to put the
directories, and they all go to the same media, which in this case is
virtual tape.
I don't know much about ACLs or GPFS, except I have checked with
our admins and I know we aren't using them. So although those are both
excellent thoughts and I thank you for the suggestion, I don't think
they apply to my case.
I will try your suggestion with Q CONTENT and go through the
actlog to see what tapes are getting mounted for what sessions. I will
post again if I learn anything interesting.
Best Regards,
John D. Schneider
Phone: 314-364-3150
Cell: 314-750-8721
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Sims
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:47 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Resourceutilization allows more tape mounts than
Your original email included "Win2003 clients".
If you are now discounting their participation and focusing on only
the AIX client sessions, then it's possible that they are using ACLs
(particularly for GPFS), where DIRMc considerations could be a factor.
In any case, why leave this a mystery when you can readily examine the
physical evidence, as per my last posting, and get a real sense of
what's going on in those sessions? It's possible that collocation
values are contributing to this.
Richard Sims
On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Schneider, John wrote:
> Richard,
> Thank you for your reply.
> The clients I am referring to are AIX, as my original email
> indicated. Andy's explanation is a good one, and says the same thing
> that the Performance Guide says.
> Neither explains the behavior we are seeing. Resourceutil=10
> should yield a maximum of 4 consumer sessions, and therefore a maximum
> of 4 tape mounts. So if maxnummp=4, then why are we still getting
> the:
>
> ANR0539W Transaction failed for session 163135 for node APLORA01. This
> node has exceeded its maximum number of mount points.
>
> messages? Are we the only site seeing this? Am I just nuts, or is TSM
> really working differently than documented? (Or both) I guess I will
> just reduce the resourceutil parameter until the problem goes away,
> and
> just leave it a mystery.
This e-mail contains information which (a) may be PROPRIETARY IN NATURE OR
OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only for the
use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the addressee, or the
person responsible for delivering this to the addressee(s), you are notified
that reading, copying or distributing this e-mail is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately.
