Robert, This latest information makes me wonder: What exactly is making you think that directories are not being bound to the correct management class? So far, we have not changed anything; but we have demonstrated that TSM is indeed binding directories correctly to MGLAW.
Notes: 1. With regard to data placement, the management class specifies the storage pool for the initial data placement. That is, when the object is backed up, TSM attempts to store it in the storage pool specified by the DESTINATION (note: if the destination storage pool is full, or if the object exceeds the maximum object size for the destination, or if the storage pool is not enabled for write access, then TSM will attempt to store the object in a successor pool based on NEXTSTGPOOL setting). TSM server processes such as migration or MOVE DATA can cause the objects to be put into a different storage pool. 2. When objects are rebound to a different management class, no data movement occurs. For example, if the object is stored in storage pool "A",rebinding the object to a management class with DESTINATION of storage pool "B" does not cause the object to move to storage pool "B". However, as mentioned in (1) above, TSM will store *new* objects in storage pool "B". 3. Rebinding occurs when you perform incremental backup on the file system that contains the objects. For example, if an object in file system /fs1 is bound to management class "MGA", then changing the management class for that object does not cause an instantaneous rebinding. Rather, the rebinding occurs the next time you back up /fs1. And as mentioned above, there is no data movement for existing objects to the new destination. So going back to my question: what is making you think the objects are not being rebound to MGLAW? If you are performing incremental backups of the file systems in question, then you can use "dsmc query backup" with the "-dirsonly" option to see which management class the directories are bound to, as you did for the test case. If you are simply looking at the storage pool where the directories are stored, then this alone is not an indicator of incorrect binding. Best regards, Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development Level 3 Team Lead Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: stor...@us.ibm.com IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page: http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> wrote on 2012-11-28 01:05:42: > From: Robert Ouzen <rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il> > To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, > Date: 2012-11-28 01:34 > Subject: Re: Strange dirmc > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> > > Andy , > > Here some results of the suggestions you made: > > dsmc q mg -detail > > MgmtClass Name : MGLAW > Description : > Space Management Technique : None > Auto Migrate on Non-Usage : 0 > Backup Required Before Migration: NO > Destination for Migrated Files : DD_LAW > Copy Group > Copy Group Name........: STANDARD > Copy Type..............: Backup > Copy Frequency.........: 0 day(s) > Versions Data Exists...: 7 version(s) > Versions Data Deleted..: 1 version(s) > Retain Extra Versions..: No Limit > Retain Only Version....: 120 day(s) > Copy Serialization.....: Dynamic > Copy Mode..............: Modified > Copy Destination.......: DD_LAW > > Create a new directory and run on it an incremental backup: > > tsm> i /home/robert/test/ -su=yes > > Incremental backup of volume '/home/robert/test/' > Successful incremental backup of '/home/robert/test/*' > > > Total number of objects inspected: 2 > Total number of objects backed up: 0 > Total number of objects updated: 0 > Total number of objects rebound: 0 > Total number of objects deleted: 0 > Total number of objects expired: 0 > Total number of objects failed: 0 > Total number of bytes transferred: 0 B > Data transfer time: 0.00 sec > Network data transfer rate: 0.00 KB/sec > Aggregate data transfer rate: 0.00 KB/sec > Objects compressed by: 0% > Elapsed processing time: 00:00:03 > > tsm> q ba /home/robert/test -dirsonly > > Size Backup Date Mgmt Class A/I File > ---- ----------- ---------- --- ---- > 128 B 11/28/12 07:45:40 MGLAW > A /home/robert/test > > Nothing wrong in the dsmerror.log > > I before this test I run a mode nodedata lawsrv from=dd_education > to=dd_law to have a clean environment. > > After the backup I run a new q nodedata lawsrv and result correct , > storage pool taken DD_LAW > > tsm: POSTBACK>q nodedata lawsrv > > Node Name Volume Name Storage Pool Physical > Name Space > Occupied > (MB) > ---------------- ------------------------------ > ---------------- -------- > LAWSRV \\DD580G\BACKUP\POSTBACK\LAW\- DD_LAW 19,771.8 > 00000000.BFS 4 > LAWSRV \\DD580G\BACKUP\POSTBACK\LAW\- DD_LAW 50,988.2 > 00000001.BFS 5 > LAWSRV \\DD580G\BACKUP\POSTBACK\LAW\- DD_LAW 51,032.0 > 00000002.BFS 5 > LAWSRV \\DD580G\BACKUP\POSTBACK\LAW\- DD_LAW 51,004.0 > 00000003.BFS 4 > > I am really confuse now everything seems O.K , I will wait to the > next schedule backup and will check again . > > Will let you know .. > > Again really appreciate your help., nice day > > Robert Ouzen > Haifa University > Israel > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > Behalf Of Andrew Raibeck > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:36 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange dirmc > > Robert, > > Have you checked the dsmerror.log in case there is some message > there that hints why the wrong management class is used for directories? > > Can you reproduce this with the command line client? Create a new > directory, such as /home/robert/newdir. Add a file or two. Then back it up, > e.g.: > > dsmc i /home/robert/newdir/ -subdir=yes > > Then query the directory backup: > > dsmc q ba /home/robert/newdir -dirsonly > > Does it show the wrong management class? Check dsmerror.log. Are > there any messages there? > > Also run: > > dsmc q mg -detail > > And examine the MGLAW management class. What does it show? > > Best regards, > > Andy Raibeck > IBM Software Group > Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development Level 3 Team Lead > Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS Internet e- > mail: stor...@us.ibm.com > > IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page: > http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/ > Tivoli_Storage_Manager > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> wrote on 2012-11-27 > 10:28:08: > > > From: Robert Ouzen <rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il> > > To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, > > Date: 2012-11-27 10:54 > > Subject: Re: Strange dirmc > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> > > > > Hi Andy > > > > Thank you for your fast reply ... > > As you see the dirmc is point to the correct management mglaw > > > > q option dirmc > > DIRMC: MGLAW > > > > I have only one stanza in this client > > > > SErvername lawsrv > > COMMmethod TCPip > > TCPPort 1500 > > TCPServeraddress XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX > > TCPCLIENTADDRESS YYY.YYYY.YYY.YYY > > Passwordaccess Generate > > Nodename lawsrv > > Dirmc mglaw > > INCLEXCL "/opt/tivoli/tsm/client/ba/bin/backup.excl" > > Schedmode prompted > > Schedlogname "/tmp/dsmsched.log" > > Errorlogname "/tmp/dsmerror.log" > > schedlogr 7 D > > errorlogr 7 D > > Resourceutilization 8 > > managedservices webclient schedule > > > > About the optiontset > > > > tsm: POSTBACK>q cloptset optionset > > > > OPTIONSET ROBERT > > > > QUIET 0 Yes yes > > RESOURCEUTILIZATION 0 Yes 4 > > SCHEDMODE 0 No prompted > > SUBDIR 0 Yes yes > > > > Regards, > > Robert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > > Of Andrew Raibeck > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:19 PM > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange dirmc > > > > Robert, > > > > Do you have more than one SERVERNAME stanza in dsm.sys? Are you sure > > that the DIRMC option is in the correct stanza? Is it possible that > > DIRMC is being overridden by a client option set? > > > > Try this test, to see what DIRMC value is in effect. From the command > > line, issue this command: > > > > dsmc query option dirmc > > > > What does it show? > > > > You might need to specify the correct SERVERNAME stanza: > > > > dsmc query option dirmc -servername=stanza_name > > > > where stanza_name is the SERVERNAME stanza in your dsm.sys file. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andy Raibeck > > IBM Software Group > > Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development Level 3 Team Lead > > Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS Internet e- > > mail: stor...@us.ibm.com > > > > IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page: > > http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/ > > Tivoli_Storage_Manager > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> wrote on 2012-11-27 > > 08:27:35: > > > > > From: Robert Ouzen <rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il> > > > To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu, > > > Date: 2012-11-27 08:38 > > > Subject: Strange dirmc > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu> > > > > > > Hi to all > > > I have a nodename who backup the directory to another management > > > class > > > > in my case mgeducation > > > > > > I have on my inclexcl file this statement: include /export/home/* > > mglaw > > > > > > I tried in the dsm.sys to put dirmc mglaw but still the directory is > > > written to mgeducation (the data is written to mglaw correctly) > > > > > > I of course after any change I stop the dsmcad and reload it but > > > the > > same ! > > > > > > I double check the management and the backup copygroup they point to > > > the correct storage DD_LAW (Activate too) > > > > > > All my another clients works fine ! > > > > > > My Tsm Server version 6.3.2.0 and client version 6.1.0 > > > > > > Regards Robert > > > > > >
