We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well. What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain (i.e., LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration you just have to do this:
UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD This works if you have all the same management classes defined in LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing a management class, then retention would be controlled by the "grace period" definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid. No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing management class names, just their attributes. If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same). We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of) the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run or has no effect. ..Paul At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote: >To all... >I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature would >cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has been >selected. > >It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote. > >Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which we cannot >allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would otherwise be >deleted. This would be in response to a "Litigation Hold" demand from a legal >issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in the past 24 months; they're >not much fun and I'm not in the court room, just the TSM Server Admin. > >Allowing a "LitigationHold=Yes" would avoid expiration on the File Space. > >When the court case is lifted, simply revert to ""LitigationHold=No". The >next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal. > >The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a "no expire" management >class to the node and trying to later revert to a more typical class. > >Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a valuable >feature. > >Thanks. >------------------------------------------------------------ >Harold Vandeventer >Systems Programmer >State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services >STE 751-S >910 SW Jackson >(785) 296-0631 > > >[Confidentiality notice:] >*********************************************************************** >This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended for the >person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential >or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, or disclosure >is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact >the sender and destroy the original message, including all copies, >Thank you. >*********************************************************************** -- Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757 Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521 IT at Cornell / Infrastructure Em: p...@cornell.edu 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
