unsubscribe
DISCLAIMER: This message may contain information which is confidential, private or privileged in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or file which is attached to this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, facsimile or telephone and thereafter return and/or destroy the original message. Any views of this communication are those of the sender except where the sender specifically states them to be those of Faritec (Holdings) Limited (Faritec) and/or any of its subsidiaries including (but not limited to) Faritec Enterprise Solutions (Proprietary) Limited, Faritec Strategic IT Services (Proprietary) Limited, Faritec Contracting (Proprietary) Limited, Ebis and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please note that the recipient must scan this e-mail and any attached files for viruses and the like. While we do everything possible to protect information from viruses, Faritec accepts no liability of whatever nature for any loss, liability, damage or expense resulting directly or indirectly from the access and/or downloading of any files which are attached to this e-mail message.
TSM Errors on Windows Server 2003. I'm new to TSM
Please help a noob with getting TSM 5.5.0.6 running on Windows Server 2003. The setup went well. The node was added to the TSM server. The job was scheduled. However, when the job executes, no data is backed up and I get the following in the DSM.LOG file. 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS5250E An unexpected error was encountered. TSM function name : VssRequestor::QueryStatus TSM function : pAsync->QueryStatus() for caller 'VssQuerySystemWriters()' returned E_UNEXPECTED TSM return code : -1 TSM file : vssreq.cpp (8380) 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS1009W An error occurred processing the operating system include/exclude statements. The error was detected while processing: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\BackupRestore\FilesNotToBackup\DRM. RC = 13. Now here is the strange part. This error has occured when the VSS server is set to auto and when it is set to manual. When I got back and take a look at the service after the TSM job errors out, it is set to disabled. Can someone shed some light here? Thanks. +-- |This was sent by joey.bow...@williams.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +--
Re: TSM Errors on Windows Server 2003. I'm new to TSM
This is a well documented MS oops. Add a CR to the end of the value in the registry. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of frankwick Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM Errors on Windows Server 2003. I'm new to TSM Please help a noob with getting TSM 5.5.0.6 running on Windows Server 2003. The setup went well. The node was added to the TSM server. The job was scheduled. However, when the job executes, no data is backed up and I get the following in the DSM.LOG file. 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS5250E An unexpected error was encountered. TSM function name : VssRequestor::QueryStatus TSM function : pAsync->QueryStatus() for caller 'VssQuerySystemWriters()' returned E_UNEXPECTED TSM return code : -1 TSM file : vssreq.cpp (8380) 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS1009W An error occurred processing the operating system include/exclude statements. The error was detected while processing: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\BackupRestore\FilesNotToBackup\DRM. RC = 13. Now here is the strange part. This error has occured when the VSS server is set to auto and when it is set to manual. When I got back and take a look at the service after the TSM job errors out, it is set to disabled. Can someone shed some light here? Thanks. +-- |This was sent by joey.bow...@williams.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
Recall: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G)
Hart, Charles A would like to recall the message, "[ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G)". This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
Re: VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G)
I imagine the 1400MBS is for the Clustered version? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:36 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) The white paper I listed in my response to this thread was written by ESG. They tested the TS7560 and obtained on the order of 1400MB/sec. And Charles is correct: it is an x86 box, actually the IBM x3850 which has, perhaps, the best architecture in the class. Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 x7105 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Hart, Charles A Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:32 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) It works well if you understand your data and how you can push to it with in reason before you deploy another. The IBM product likes more CPU cores ... Understand these are x86 boxes... We see up to 500MBS Writes to one of our VTL's that ingests Exchange Backups via the TSM TDP. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 12:24 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Funny. I would say that BAD dedupe is the enemy of throughput. There IS good dedupe. I've seen it. It hurts neither backup, nor restore performance. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Clark, Robert A Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:44 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Dedupe is an errand boy, sent by the storage industry, to collect a bill. Dedupe is the enemy of throughput. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:25 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Why do you hate all things dedupe? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:12 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Funny, but I was researching the TS7650 yesterday and found this article on the IBM website. Pretty good detail about the product in a non-TSM environment. ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/storage/tape/ts7650g_esg_validation.pdf And then this on in the TSM environment. I think this one might have been written by somebody somewhat less familiar with TSM than we would be. Seemed a little heavy handed about TSM. ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/common/ssi/sa/wh/n/tsw03043usen/TSW03043USEN. PDF My overall impression, and I hate all things de-dup, was this is a pretty good product offering. I'm sure it's way expensive but understand there are some follow on products coming that will address the lower end of this market. Thanks, Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 x7105 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Alex Paschal Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:03 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Hi, Sabar. I couldn't find a TS7569G via Google, but on the TS7650G, also a deduping VTL, after data goes through the factoring (dedup) algorithm it is run through a compression algorithm. You probably won't see much deduplication, but on the first backup you should see a decrease in size similar to the decrease you would see from the compression on a tape drive. Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Sabar Martin Hasiholan Panggabean Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:10 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Hi, Does anyone here has been implementing or know how Dedup works in TSM using TS7569G ? Let say I have 100 TB of data and backup to this VTL. On the 1st attempt of backup / full backup, will this data size decrease on the VTL BR, Martin P This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. T
Re: TSM library manager instance
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:58:18 -0400, Sean English >> said: > So from what I gather below, you have 1 LM with 20 library client > TSM instances connected to it? How many libraries do you have? Just the one. > Do you have a bunch of storage agents? Nope. > Reason I ask is we have a single LM with 15 TSM instances and we > have some issues surrounding that. It could be the number of storage > agents we have or maybe something else. But I would be curious in > how you are setup if you don't mind me asking. Not at all. Sorry for the delayed response: I've been out sick. We're pretty basic in architecture; though I'm about to switch a little. I've got one p630 with a RIO drawer (IBM AIX hardware) with one library manager instance and a passel of (as I call them) "customer-facing" instances. The customer-facing instances serve audiences ranging in size from a single application (IBM content manager) to a single service machine (central mail back-end with ~50M files) to a single service, to a single organizational unit, to "some folks". :) I started with one big instance, and calved new ones off as the administrative distinctions became apparent and important. The most significant calving events tend to be flavored: "Don't let -their- failure affect -me-". - Allen S. Rout
Not too risky.... ( was Re: Dear Tuscon )
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:39:23 -0500, Nick Laflamme >> said: > My heart leapt when my RSS reader presented me an article in the TSM > udpates feed from IBM with the heading, "Keeping more than one TSM > server database backup on a tape." As I'm implementing a new server > using 3592 drives, I haven't been happy with my options for this > particular issue. Maybe, I thought, I was about to learn something > of immediate use and high value! > My heart sank when I read the actual article, which might be > paraphrased as, "Sorry, Charlie, too risky." I say, bunk. Of course, your decisions have to be guided by your own sense of paranoia, but I think a blanket "too risky" is just plain wrong. If you actually measure your risks, I think you'll find you can lower them, not raise them, and get "more than one DB backup on a tape" as a side effect. Here's what I do: My library manager is also the server-to-server virtual volume target for all my infrastructure's database backups. The DB backups are thus primary archive data, from the perspective of the LM instance. I then make offsite and onsite copies of these primary stgpools. I end up with three different physical copies of the same backup run. Contrast with direct backups to volumes: You can do a normal full and a snapshot, in the interest of having something to take offsite and something to keep onsite. But they are -different- backups. They require different procedures, and only one of them can (for example) be used as part of a full/incremental scheme. Further, you have to re-do work. If you want "a backup onsite, and a backup offsite", you have to run two backups; you can't copy a DB backup at all. More of your 24-hour clock occluded with DB-intensive maintenance tasks. Just what you need. --- Media risk in the direct-backup case is the basic media failure risk of the device in question. Low for any modern media, astronomically so for 3592-class volumes. But not zero, as we all well know. Media risk in my case is basic-media-failure _cubed_. I'll handwave around the procedural risks, "did I manage to make my copies", and address that separately. If you'll grant me the copies, you can clearly see that I need three different pieces of media to have failed in order to miss my restore: the primary, the onsite copy, and the offsite copy. Better still, if you want more belts and suspenders, go to town. Two copy stgpools? why not four: two onsite, two offsite! We could go for one-googolth risk levels. That'd be silly, but achievable. One-molarth is probably adequate for humans. --- I handwaved at procedural risks, but I don't intend to just ignore them: Yes, you have to maintain the copy stgpools in order to get that increased security. But we do that all the time, every day. if our TSM administrative scheduling isn't adequate to maintain a few small copy pools (mine total under 3T each) it's not adequate to manage the DB backups in the first place. --- Note I haven't specifically addressed 'more than one DB backup on a tape' yet. It's offstage, behind that 'the DB backups are primary data, from the perspective of the LM instance' dodge. I've managed my servers' DB backups in a variety of ways. Right now, I collocate them by node, to prevent server_a from occluding a restore by server_b. but all the fulls and incrementals for a given machine are on one tape. --- Finally, don't be misled by the eggs-to-basket ratio. It's an emotionally persuasive argument, but irrelevant to your needs. You don't care about the other eggs, the other DB backups: you care about a particular one. If you wanted Monday's full, and a tape has gone bad, this doesn't somehow mean you want Friday's full instead. This means you're falling back. What I'm suggesting is that you 'fall back' to another copy of the full backup you wanted in the first place. - Allen S. Rout
Re: Dear Tuscon
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:38:02 -0400, "Kauffman, Tom" >> said: > I go a step further - I want the ability to cut two matching copies > of the database backup to two tapes simultaneously. I'm currently > running two backups back-to-back, but I'm unable to have sessions > disabled for 40 minutes, so they are NOT identical backups. Vrtual VOOOoollluuumes... - Allen S. Rout - Crying in the wilderness.
Re: Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library
David, While I understand that this works in specific circumstances, we've had significant problems with your specific combination. The problem we observed will occur with a current release of TSM server and any two-level gap in LTO generations and the right circumstances. You may want to wait on implementation until you are running a TSM version which contains the fix described in APAR IC59691. Unless you can live with that feature. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC59691 -- Bill Smoldt VP Research & Development STORServer, Inc. 719-266-8777 x7103 From: David McClelland Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:39:28 -0600 To: Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library (War and Peace again - sorry): Thanks for all of your responses both on and off list. I've put some feelers out elsewhere on this too (many thanks if you're reading) and have had some interesting and contradictory responses! In summary, there do seem to be some folks out there running with exactly the proposed config below (i.e. LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same logical/physical library, LTO2 used purely for offsite media generation) and, provided parameters such as MOUNTLIMIT are set carefully (as well as separate devclasses and stgpools of course), it is a happy configuration without undesired LTO2 > LTO4 cross pollination. The 'Implementing IBM Tape in Unix Systems' Redbook is an excellent read and talks about this configuration in one of its examples (going against my reading of the TSM Admin Guide): "As of Tivoli Storage Manager V5.3.5, LTO4 drives are supported, and any combination of LTO 2, 3, and 4 drives and media can be used in one library [...] Although LTO4 drives can read the LTO2 media (but cannot write to it), care should be taken to avoid attempted writing. Set the MOUNTLIMIT option for the LTO2 devclass to less than the sum of LTO2 and 3 drives (see the previous tip), thereby preventing the LTO2 media from being loaded in the LTO4 drives. The LTO2 media will still be available for normal use by the LTO2 [and 3] drives. "['Previous tip' - relates to different scenario but the point is still valid] Setting the MOUNTLIMIT parameter: For read or write tape mounts, Tivoli Storage Manager will select LTO3 drives for LTO3 media first. If no LTO3 devices are available, an available LTO4 drive will be selected for the LTO3 media. To prevent the case where all LTO4 drives are loaded with LTO3 media (leaving no drives available to read/write LTO4 media), set the DEVCLASS parameter MOUNTLIMIT appropriately. " The above is from section 5.11.1 of the Redbook. Given the headache of repartitioning the 3584 library from its base config into two partitions without ALMS (http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21145429 gives an indication of this), its inherent inflexibility plus extra work required during the migration activity itself, I'm inclined to think that the single partition library solution above is the way to go after all. I would also be able to perform a good deal of the TSM Server work (defining devclasses, stgpools etc) prior to the migration weekend, de-risking the change somewhat. That's how I'm looking at the moment - many thanks again for your thoughts. /David Mc London, UK -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Baker, Jane Sent: 20 March 2009 08:19 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library We have a 3584 with LTO2 & LTO3 which we use via logical partitioning, it works really well so would recommend that? As said previously as long as you have separate device classes and control paths neither will intermix. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Wanda Prather Sent: 19 March 2009 20:54 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library TSM does support mixing media in the library, but I believe you are correct that with LTO2 + LTO4 drives and media, you will have a problem. I've included the text from the 5.5 TSM Admin Guide for Windows below. I interpret it to say that there is no way to keep an LTO2 scratch cartridge from landing in an LTO4 drive, and the LTO4 drive can't write to it and problems will ensue. You could indeed partition the library with ALMS. But the way I've gotten around this before with is to simply create two logical libraries in 1 physical library. (This would be especially convenient since you don't intend to keep this configuration very long.) CAVEAT: I have to say I haven't done this since TSM 5.3, so YMMV: Create a new TSM LTO4 library. Define the path for the library to point to the lbx.y.z.q device that Windows sees (this will be a control path in the library created on one of the
TSM V6 Tivoli Clients
Hello, Does anyone know how soon after TSM V6 is available which believe is on 3/27 will the 6.1 clients be available? Thanks in advance!
Re: VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G)
Yes, that is correct. Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 x7105 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Hart, Charles A Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) I imagine the 1400MBS is for the Clustered version? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:36 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) The white paper I listed in my response to this thread was written by ESG. They tested the TS7560 and obtained on the order of 1400MB/sec. And Charles is correct: it is an x86 box, actually the IBM x3850 which has, perhaps, the best architecture in the class. Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 x7105 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Hart, Charles A Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:32 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) It works well if you understand your data and how you can push to it with in reason before you deploy another. The IBM product likes more CPU cores ... Understand these are x86 boxes... We see up to 500MBS Writes to one of our VTL's that ingests Exchange Backups via the TSM TDP. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 12:24 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Funny. I would say that BAD dedupe is the enemy of throughput. There IS good dedupe. I've seen it. It hurts neither backup, nor restore performance. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Clark, Robert A Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:44 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Dedupe is an errand boy, sent by the storage industry, to collect a bill. Dedupe is the enemy of throughput. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of W. Curtis Preston Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:25 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Why do you hate all things dedupe? -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:12 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Funny, but I was researching the TS7650 yesterday and found this article on the IBM website. Pretty good detail about the product in a non-TSM environment. ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/storage/tape/ts7650g_esg_validation.pdf And then this on in the TSM environment. I think this one might have been written by somebody somewhat less familiar with TSM than we would be. Seemed a little heavy handed about TSM. ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/common/ssi/sa/wh/n/tsw03043usen/TSW03043USEN. PDF My overall impression, and I hate all things de-dup, was this is a pretty good product offering. I'm sure it's way expensive but understand there are some follow on products coming that will address the lower end of this market. Thanks, Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 x7105 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Alex Paschal Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:03 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Hi, Sabar. I couldn't find a TS7569G via Google, but on the TS7650G, also a deduping VTL, after data goes through the factoring (dedup) algorithm it is run through a compression algorithm. You probably won't see much deduplication, but on the first backup you should see a decrease in size similar to the decrease you would see from the compression on a tape drive. Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Sabar Martin Hasiholan Panggabean Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:10 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] VTL and Dedup ( TS7569G) Hi, Does anyone here has been implementing or know how Dedup works in TSM using TS7569G ? Let say I have 100 TB of data and backup to this VTL. On the 1st attempt of backup / full backup, will this data size decrease on the VTL BR, Martin P This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If yo
Re: Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library
Hi Bill, Many thanks for feeding back with this. (Why do things like this always come through and scare me like that right at the end of my day in the office just when I’m getting set to head home...!) The APAR suggests 5.5.2.0 and 5.4.4.1 and above are currently affected by this issue (and perhaps as a result of the IC54738 fix from my reading of it) – it’s Windows TSM 5.4.3.2 onsite here now (migrating to AIX TSM 5.5.1.1), so I think they’ll just about dodge underneath this issue I reckon. The mixed LTO2/4 media/drives is a config they’ll be running for (to the current plan) about 5 weeks before the wholesale migration to LTO4 drives and read only LTO2 media. Many thanks, David Mc London, UK From: Bill Smoldt [mailto:smo...@storserver.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 17:19 To: david.mcclell...@networkc.co.uk; ADSM: Dist Stor Manager Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library David, While I understand that this works in specific circumstances, we’ve had significant problems with your specific combination. The problem we observed will occur with a current release of TSM server and any two-level gap in LTO generations and the right circumstances. You may want to wait on implementation until you are running a TSM version which contains the fix described in APAR IC59691. Unless you can live with that feature. HYPERLINK "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC59691"http://www-01.ibm .com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC59691 -- Bill Smoldt VP Research & Development STORServer, Inc. 719-266-8777 x7103 _ From: David McClelland Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:39:28 -0600 To: Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library (War and Peace again - sorry): Thanks for all of your responses both on and off list. I've put some feelers out elsewhere on this too (many thanks if you're reading) and have had some interesting and contradictory responses! In summary, there do seem to be some folks out there running with exactly the proposed config below (i.e. LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same logical/physical library, LTO2 used purely for offsite media generation) and, provided parameters such as MOUNTLIMIT are set carefully (as well as separate devclasses and stgpools of course), it is a happy configuration without undesired LTO2 > LTO4 cross pollination. The 'Implementing IBM Tape in Unix Systems' Redbook is an excellent read and talks about this configuration in one of its examples (going against my reading of the TSM Admin Guide): "As of Tivoli Storage Manager V5.3.5, LTO4 drives are supported, and any combination of LTO 2, 3, and 4 drives and media can be used in one library [...] Although LTO4 drives can read the LTO2 media (but cannot write to it), care should be taken to avoid attempted writing. Set the MOUNTLIMIT option for the LTO2 devclass to less than the sum of LTO2 and 3 drives (see the previous tip), thereby preventing the LTO2 media from being loaded in the LTO4 drives. The LTO2 media will still be available for normal use by the LTO2 [and 3] drives. "['Previous tip' - relates to different scenario but the point is still valid] Setting the MOUNTLIMIT parameter: For read or write tape mounts, Tivoli Storage Manager will select LTO3 drives for LTO3 media first. If no LTO3 devices are available, an available LTO4 drive will be selected for the LTO3 media. To prevent the case where all LTO4 drives are loaded with LTO3 media (leaving no drives available to read/write LTO4 media), set the DEVCLASS parameter MOUNTLIMIT appropriately. " The above is from section 5.11.1 of the Redbook. Given the headache of repartitioning the 3584 library from its base config into two partitions without ALMS (HYPERLINK "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21145429"http://www-01.ibm .com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21145429 gives an indication of this), its inherent inflexibility plus extra work required during the migration activity itself, I'm inclined to think that the single partition library solution above is the way to go after all. I would also be able to perform a good deal of the TSM Server work (defining devclasses, stgpools etc) prior to the migration weekend, de-risking the change somewhat. That's how I'm looking at the moment - many thanks again for your thoughts. /David Mc London, UK -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [HYPERLINK "mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU"mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Baker, Jane Sent: 20 March 2009 08:19 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Fwd: [ADSM-L] Mixing LTO2 and LTO4 drives and media in the same library We have a 3584 with LTO2 & LTO3 which we use via logical partitioning, it works really well so would recommend that? As said previously as long as you have separate device classes and control paths neither will intermix. -Original Message- Fro
Re: Dear Tuscon
Tom, If you have more than one TSM server you can have multiple copies of the same backup just by using virtual volumes to another TSM server. - Backup to virtual volume on server A - storage pool A - Create offsite copy of storage pool A on server A - Create a second copy if you are really paranoid or have poor tape reliability. If your virtual volume is on RAID disk, it is probably a bit more reliable than most tape. If you really want to get fancy, put the virtual volume storage pool on mirrored disk and immediately after the backup completes, break the mirror and you have two instant copies of your DB backup. Cheers, Neil Strand Storage Engineer - Legg Mason Baltimore, MD. (410) 580-7491 Whatever you can do or believe you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kauffman, Tom Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Dear Tuscon I go a step further - I want the ability to cut two matching copies of the database backup to two tapes simultaneously. I'm currently running two backups back-to-back, but I'm unable to have sessions disabled for 40 minutes, so they are NOT identical backups. Tom -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Wanda Prather Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:24 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Dear Tuscon I agree. I want my TSM DB backup on the MOST RELIABLE MEDIA/DEVICE I CAN GET. If you EVER need that DB backup tape, it's because you are already in deep do-do, and in a hurry to fix it. The last thing you'll want to deal with is the risk of encountering an I/O error on a DB restore... On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM, David E Ehresman wrote: > Gee. Our 3592 tapes cost somewhere around 100 dollars. We keep 5 days > worth of TSM DB backups. $500 is real cheap in order to keep a copy > of our most important DR resource on our most reliable backup medium. > > David Ehresman > University of Louisville > > >>> Nick Laflamme 3/20/2009 10:39 AM >>> > My heart leapt when my RSS reader presented me an article in the TSM > udpates feed from IBM with the heading, "Keeping more than one TSM > server database backup on a tape." As I'm implementing a new server > using 3592 drives, I haven't been happy with my options for this > particular issue. Maybe, I thought, I was about to learn something of > immediate use and high value! > > My heart sank when I read the actual article, which might be > paraphrased as, "Sorry, Charlie, too risky." > > Back to asking for some LTO drives just for small, inexpensive tapes > for DB backups. > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. IMPORTANT: E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure and timely delivery of Internet mail is not guaranteed. Legg Mason therefore, recommends that you do not send any action-oriented or time-sensitive information to us via electronic mail, or any confidential or sensitive information including: social security numbers, account numbers, or personal identification numbers. This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the author by replying to this message and then kindly delete the message. Thank you.
SV: TSM Errors on Windows Server 2003. I'm new to TSM
Hi, You got 2 different errors in your log. 1) Have you take a look in Windows Event Viewer for more information? I should probably verify that you have install all the Microsoft VSS Updates. 2) DRM. RC = 13 can you find more information on link http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21243837 Best Regards Christian Svensson Cell: +46-70-325 1577 E-mail: christian.svens...@cristie.se Skype: cristie.christian.svensson Från: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ads...@vm.marist.edu] för frankwick [tsm-fo...@backupcentral.com] Skickat: den 23 mars 2009 16:22 Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Ämne: TSM Errors on Windows Server 2003. I'm new to TSM Please help a noob with getting TSM 5.5.0.6 running on Windows Server 2003. The setup went well. The node was added to the TSM server. The job was scheduled. However, when the job executes, no data is backed up and I get the following in the DSM.LOG file. 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS5250E An unexpected error was encountered. TSM function name : VssRequestor::QueryStatus TSM function : pAsync->QueryStatus() for caller 'VssQuerySystemWriters()' returned E_UNEXPECTED TSM return code : -1 TSM file : vssreq.cpp (8380) 03/23/2009 09:15:02 ANS1009W An error occurred processing the operating system include/exclude statements. The error was detected while processing: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\BackupRestore\FilesNotToBackup\DRM. RC = 13. Now here is the strange part. This error has occured when the VSS server is set to auto and when it is set to manual. When I got back and take a look at the service after the TSM job errors out, it is set to disabled. Can someone shed some light here? Thanks. +-- |This was sent by joey.bow...@williams.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +--
Re: TSM V6 Tivoli Clients
Timothy Hughes wrote: Hello, Does anyone know how soon after TSM V6 is available which believe is on 3/27 will the 6.1 clients be available? The expectation is that client, server, and documentation will all be released on the day (Friday) that TSM 6.1 becomes generally available. -- Todd D. Taft todd_t...@unc.edu
Re: Calculating Change in Backup Environment
I would expect growth close to 14 times your nightly run. The reasoning is you already have a copy of the stuff that does not change and you already have a copy of the last 7 days. You are adding 14 more days. There will be some shrinkage from the objects that do not make the 7 changes in 90 days because the older of them will drop off sooner. If the change is made I would be interested in the actual results. Andy Huebner -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis, Melburn (IT Solutions US) Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:47 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Calculating Change in Backup Environment Currently, our backup environment employs a 90-day / 7 revision backup policy. My customer has come to me to find out how much our backup data would grow or shrink if we went to a 21-day / 21-revision backup policy. Have any of you out there experience requests like this before, and if so, how were you able to get a reasonable guestimate of this. Mel Dennis Systems Engineer II Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Inc. Energy Data Center Operations 4400 Alafaya Trail MC Q1-108 Orlando, FL 32826 Tel.: 407-736-2360 Mob: 321-356-9366 Fax: 407-243-0260 mailto:melburn.den...@siemens.com www.usa.siemens.com/it-solutions This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
how do I recover DSM records from a crashed SGI server?
I am not familiar with DSM file structure. I have an old SGI server that was removed and replaced and it seems the Tivoli information was not transfered/migrated. I now have a need to access files stored in the Tivoli backup system that were made on this now detatched computer. My plan is to find the "index" file in the old system and incorporate it into the new. How do I go about doing this? +-- |This was sent by alei...@windstream.net via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +--
Re: TSM V6 Tivoli Clients
Hi, In a production environment, I would be very hesitant to go anywhere near V6 until at least you have tested it in a test environment with your database. As this version is a huge technology shift, I would be very weary of staying on the bleeding edge of the product. Regards Adrian Compton Aspen Pharmacare Port Elizabeth tel: +2741 4072855 Fax: +2741 453 7452 Cell: +27823204495 Email: acomp...@aspenpharma.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Hughes Sent: 23 March 2009 19:29 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM V6 Tivoli Clients Hello, Does anyone know how soon after TSM V6 is available which believe is on 3/27 will the 6.1 clients be available? Thanks in advance!
