Re: Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

2014-11-19 Thread Zoltan Forray
We looked into using Tivoli FastBack but were completely surprised when it
didn't support ext4 filesystems or filesystems >2TB!  From the "*FastBack
Client and BMR Hardware Requirements"*

Linux Client only supports Simple & Simple LVM volumes. File system
supports: EXT2, EXT3 and Reiser FS

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Grigori Solonovitch <
grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com> wrote:

> Hello Eric,
> We are using CBMR (without TSM initially) and TBMR now for many years
> without any problems. We have restored a few production servers after real
> crash including dissimilar configuration.
> After moving to VMware there is no problem at all. We have just uploaded
> TBMR ISO images to all VMware hosts to speed up recovery (without CD-ROM
> drive).
> Support from UK is very good. Licenses and support are not free, but they
> have some specially license policy for VMware to reduce cost in comparison
> with standalone licenses.
> In addition, they have presented Recovery Simulator recently. It allows to
> simulate recovery in VMware environment (backup testing without touching
> real VMs) for most valuable VMs or keep it scheduled at all.
> I have no experience with FastBack and couldn't compare products.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank
> Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
> Sent: 18 11 2014 11:30 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR
>
> Fellow TSM-ers,
> We are looking for a bare machine recovery, primarily for Windows and
> Linux servers. There seem to be two main products on the market when using
> TSM: Tivoli's own Fastback for Bare Machine Recovery and the third party
> product Cristie Bare Machine Recovery which seems to be tightly integrated
> into TSM.
> As far as I can judge from reading documentation, some YouTube video's and
> a live demo of the Cristie product the latter seems a lot easier to use and
> implement, but I haven't had any hands-on experience of course.
> Has anyone compared the two products, maybe in a live situation? What are
> their pros and cons?
> Thank you very much for you reply in advance!
> Kind regards,
> Eric van Loon
> AF/KLM Storage Engineering
> 
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If
> you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or
> any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other
> action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may
> be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message.
>
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its
> employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission
> of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt.
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch
> Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered
> number 33014286
> 
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
>
> 
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this electronic
> mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally privileged and
> confidential. The information is intended only for the recipient(s) named
> in this message. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
> that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you
> have received this in error please contact the sender and delete this
> message and any attachments from your computer system. We do not guarantee
> that this message or any attachment to it is secure or free from errors,
> computer viruses or other conditions that may damage or interfere with
> data, hardware or software.
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
BigBro / Hobbit / Xymon Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html


FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" Host

2014-11-19 Thread Tom-Alesandros
Hello,
 
in our Exchange DAG Environment (Windows Server 2008 R2, Exchange 2010 SP3, 
Flashcopy Manager 3.2) we have one server (VM) dedicated to doing backups.
The Backups are not sent to TSM Server, but done locally on V7000, without 
SE-Volumes or Thin Provisioning.
 
On the V7000 Storage we defined a "fake" host VSS_FREE with the FC Port 
5000 that contains all the empty Volumes, and a host VSS_RESERVED 
with Port number 5001 to take care of the used volumes, as stated 
in the Flashcopy Manager manual. However, there is never even a single LUN 
moved to the VSS_RESERVED Host. All LUNs are still attached to the Exchange 
Server, which is a problem, because one HBA can only address 128 LUNs.
I have only found this one passage about VSS_RESERVED host in the 
documentation. Is there anything I have to do to make this work?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 


Exchange restore failure

2014-11-19 Thread Swartz, Jerome
Hi folks,

I am having issues restoring an exchange DB. It's a standalone Exchange 2010 
server on Windows 2008 R2.

The exchange runs up until the end when its tries to mount the DB then fails.

TDPexc log Errors:

11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN6039E An error has occurred while mounting or 
dismounting a database.
11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the request.

Task detail errors:

tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Full /BACKUPDESTination=TSM /BACKUPMETHod=VSS 
/FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No /INTODB="Recoverydb03" 
/OBJect=20141014164053
 tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM 
/BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No 
/INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141014220359
 tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM 
/BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No 
/INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141020220128
 tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM 
/BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No 
/INTODB="Recoverydb03" /MOUNTDAtabases=Yes /OBJect=20141021220456 
/RECOVer=APPLYALLlogs

Failed - ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the request.

Regards,

Jerome Swartz


Re: FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" Host

2014-11-19 Thread Del Hoobler
Hi Tom,

Do you have the following option enabled?

IMPORTVSSSNAPSHOTSONLYWhenneeded YES

You can check this by issuing this command:

tdpexcc query tdp

By default, the parameter is set to No. This default setting
means that local persistent VSS snapshots are automatically imported
to the Windows system where the snapshots are created and
will stay mapped to the host.


Del



"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 11/19/2014
08:09:51 AM:

> From: tom-alesand...@gmx.net
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 11/19/2014 08:12 AM
> Subject: FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" Host
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
>
> Hello,
>
> in our Exchange DAG Environment (Windows Server 2008 R2, Exchange
> 2010 SP3, Flashcopy Manager 3.2) we have one server (VM) dedicated
> to doing backups.
> The Backups are not sent to TSM Server, but done locally on V7000,
> without SE-Volumes or Thin Provisioning.
>
> On the V7000 Storage we defined a "fake" host VSS_FREE with the FC
> Port 5000 that contains all the empty Volumes, and a
> host VSS_RESERVED with Port number 5001 to take care of
> the used volumes, as stated in the Flashcopy Manager manual.
> However, there is never even a single LUN moved to the VSS_RESERVED
> Host. All LUNs are still attached to the Exchange Server, which is a
> problem, because one HBA can only address 128 LUNs.
> I have only found this one passage about VSS_RESERVED host in the
> documentation. Is there anything I have to do to make this work?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>


Re: Exchange restore failure

2014-11-19 Thread Del Hoobler
Hi Jerome,

The information below is not enough to determine the problem.
Check the Windows Event Log as well as the TDPEXC.LOG in the
TDPExchange directory and the DSMERROR.LOG in the baclient directory.
Sometimes it is because there is a gap in the Exchange transaction logs.

I recommend opening a PMR.


Del




"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 11/19/2014
08:21:37 AM:

> From: "Swartz, Jerome" 
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 11/19/2014 08:23 AM
> Subject: Exchange restore failure
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am having issues restoring an exchange DB. It's a standalone
> Exchange 2010 server on Windows 2008 R2.
>
> The exchange runs up until the end when its tries to mount the DB then
fails.
>
> TDPexc log Errors:
>
> 11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN6039E An error has occurred while mounting or
> dismounting a database.
> 11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the
request.
>
> Task detail errors:
>
> tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Full /BACKUPDESTination=TSM /
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No /
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141014164053
>  tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM /
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No /
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141014220359
>  tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM /
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No /
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141020220128
>  tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM /
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No /
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /MOUNTDAtabases=Yes /OBJect=20141021220456 /
> RECOVer=APPLYALLlogs
>
> Failed - ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerome Swartz
>


Re: Exchange restore failure

2014-11-19 Thread Swartz, Jerome
Thanks Del,

Found this in the Event logs;

The following error occurred while starting database Recoverydb03: Database is 
in inconsistent state. 
Failed to configure MDB. 

Active Manager failed to mount database Recoverydb03 on server 
EARTH.capespan.com. Error: An Active Manager operation failed. Error The 
database action failed. Error: Operation failed with message: 
MapiExceptionCallFailed: Unable to mount database. (hr=0x80004005, ec=-550)
At '2014/11/19 03:29:04 PM' the Exchange store database 'Recoverydb03' copy on 
this server detected corruption on the active copy of the database. To help 
identify the specific failure, consult the Event log on the server for other 
storage and "ExchangeStoreDb" events.  Service recovery was attempted by 
failover to another copy, which was unsuccessful in restoring the service. 
Error: There is only one copy of this mailbox database (Recoverydb03). 
Automatic recovery is not available.



-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del 
Hoobler
Sent: 19 November 2014 03:32 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Exchange restore failure

Hi Jerome,

The information below is not enough to determine the problem.
Check the Windows Event Log as well as the TDPEXC.LOG in the TDPExchange 
directory and the DSMERROR.LOG in the baclient directory.
Sometimes it is because there is a gap in the Exchange transaction logs.

I recommend opening a PMR.


Del




"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 11/19/2014
08:21:37 AM:

> From: "Swartz, Jerome" 
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 11/19/2014 08:23 AM
> Subject: Exchange restore failure
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am having issues restoring an exchange DB. It's a standalone 
> Exchange 2010 server on Windows 2008 R2.
>
> The exchange runs up until the end when its tries to mount the DB then
fails.
>
> TDPexc log Errors:
>
> 11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN6039E An error has occurred while mounting or 
> dismounting a database.
> 11/19/2014 14:22:40 ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the
request.
>
> Task detail errors:
>
> tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Full /BACKUPDESTination=TSM / 
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No / 
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141014164053  tdpexcc RESTORE 
> "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM / BACKUPMETHod=VSS 
> /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No / INTODB="Recoverydb03" 
> /OBJect=20141014220359  tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental 
> /BACKUPDESTination=TSM / BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH 
> /INSTANTRestore=No / INTODB="Recoverydb03" /OBJect=20141020220128  
> tdpexcc RESTORE "MailboxDB03" Incremental /BACKUPDESTination=TSM / 
> BACKUPMETHod=VSS /FROMEXCSERVer=EARTH /INSTANTRestore=No / 
> INTODB="Recoverydb03" /MOUNTDAtabases=Yes /OBJect=20141021220456 / 
> RECOVer=APPLYALLlogs
>
> Failed - ACN0151E Errors occurred while processing the request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerome Swartz
>


Aw: Re: [ADSM-L] FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" Host

2014-11-19 Thread Tom-Alesandros
No, I have not. Thanks a lot Del! I don't know how I did not notice that.

Best regards
 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. November 2014 um 14:22 Uhr
Von: "Del Hoobler" 
An: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Betreff: Re: [ADSM-L] FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" 
Host
Hi Tom,

Do you have the following option enabled?

IMPORTVSSSNAPSHOTSONLYWhenneeded YES

You can check this by issuing this command:

tdpexcc query tdp

By default, the parameter is set to No. This default setting
means that local persistent VSS snapshots are automatically imported
to the Windows system where the snapshots are created and
will stay mapped to the host.


Del



"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 11/19/2014
08:09:51 AM:

> From: tom-alesand...@gmx.net
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 11/19/2014 08:12 AM
> Subject: FCM Local Backup Volumes not returned to "VSS_RESERVED" Host
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
>
> Hello,
>
> in our Exchange DAG Environment (Windows Server 2008 R2, Exchange
> 2010 SP3, Flashcopy Manager 3.2) we have one server (VM) dedicated
> to doing backups.
> The Backups are not sent to TSM Server, but done locally on V7000,
> without SE-Volumes or Thin Provisioning.
>
> On the V7000 Storage we defined a "fake" host VSS_FREE with the FC
> Port 5000 that contains all the empty Volumes, and a
> host VSS_RESERVED with Port number 5001 to take care of
> the used volumes, as stated in the Flashcopy Manager manual.
> However, there is never even a single LUN moved to the VSS_RESERVED
> Host. All LUNs are still attached to the Exchange Server, which is a
> problem, because one HBA can only address 128 LUNs.
> I have only found this one passage about VSS_RESERVED host in the
> documentation. Is there anything I have to do to make this work?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>


Re: Exchange restore failure

2014-11-19 Thread Del Hoobler
Hi Jerome,

You are restoring into a recovery database.
You should choose the following option:

  Replay Restored Logs ONLY

on the Restore tab.

Try the restore again specifying the option above.

User's Guide describes it here:


http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSTG2D_7.1.1/com.ibm.itsm.mail.exc.doc/t_dpe_gen_res_rsgalternate.html


Del




"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 11/19/2014
08:43:52 AM:

> From: "Swartz, Jerome" 
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Date: 11/19/2014 08:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Exchange restore failure
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
>
> Thanks Del,
>
> Found this in the Event logs;
>
> The following error occurred while starting database Recoverydb03:
> Database is in inconsistent state.
> Failed to configure MDB.
>
> Active Manager failed to mount database Recoverydb03 on server
> EARTH.capespan.com. Error: An Active Manager operation failed. Error
> The database action failed. Error: Operation failed with message:
> MapiExceptionCallFailed: Unable to mount database. (hr=0x80004005,
ec=-550)
> At '2014/11/19 03:29:04 PM' the Exchange store database
> 'Recoverydb03' copy on this server detected corruption on the active
> copy of the database. To help identify the specific failure, consult
> the Event log on the server for other storage and "ExchangeStoreDb"
> events.  Service recovery was attempted by failover to another copy,
> which was unsuccessful in restoring the service. Error: There is
> only one copy of this mailbox database (Recoverydb03). Automatic
> recovery is not available.
>


Re: Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

2014-11-19 Thread Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
Hi Zoltan!
That's very good to know! This causes Tivoli FastBack to be scrapped from the 
list immediately. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Eric van Loon
AF/KLM Storage Engineering

-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan 
Forray
Sent: woensdag 19 november 2014 14:07
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

We looked into using Tivoli FastBack but were completely surprised when it 
didn't support ext4 filesystems or filesystems >2TB!  From the "*FastBack 
Client and BMR Hardware Requirements"*

Linux Client only supports Simple & Simple LVM volumes. File system
supports: EXT2, EXT3 and Reiser FS

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Grigori Solonovitch < 
grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com> wrote:

> Hello Eric,
> We are using CBMR (without TSM initially) and TBMR now for many years 
> without any problems. We have restored a few production servers after 
> real crash including dissimilar configuration.
> After moving to VMware there is no problem at all. We have just 
> uploaded TBMR ISO images to all VMware hosts to speed up recovery 
> (without CD-ROM drive).
> Support from UK is very good. Licenses and support are not free, but 
> they have some specially license policy for VMware to reduce cost in 
> comparison with standalone licenses.
> In addition, they have presented Recovery Simulator recently. It 
> allows to simulate recovery in VMware environment (backup testing 
> without touching real VMs) for most valuable VMs or keep it scheduled at all.
> I have no experience with FastBack and couldn't compare products.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank 
> Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
> Sent: 18 11 2014 11:30 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR
>
> Fellow TSM-ers,
> We are looking for a bare machine recovery, primarily for Windows and 
> Linux servers. There seem to be two main products on the market when 
> using
> TSM: Tivoli's own Fastback for Bare Machine Recovery and the third 
> party product Cristie Bare Machine Recovery which seems to be tightly 
> integrated into TSM.
> As far as I can judge from reading documentation, some YouTube video's 
> and a live demo of the Cristie product the latter seems a lot easier 
> to use and implement, but I haven't had any hands-on experience of course.
> Has anyone compared the two products, maybe in a live situation? What 
> are their pros and cons?
> Thank you very much for you reply in advance!
> Kind regards,
> Eric van Loon
> AF/KLM Storage Engineering
> 
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain 
> confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. 
> If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the 
> e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and 
> that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly 
> prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by 
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this 
> message.
>
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or 
> its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete 
> transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay 
> in receipt.
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal 
> Dutch
> Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with 
> registered number 33014286
> 
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
>
> 
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this 
> electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally 
> privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the 
> recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended 
> recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or 
> distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please 
> contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from 
> your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any 
> attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or 
> other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software.
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
BigBro / Hobbit / Xymon Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never 
use email t

Re: Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

2014-11-19 Thread Prather, Wanda
Fastback is also a separate server, which backs up to disk only.
It uses your regular TSM server to replicate to, but it's really reinventing 
the wheel if you already have regular TSM clients in place.  
Fastback BMR isn't something you add on to your normal TSM clients. 

-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan 
Forray
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:07 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

We looked into using Tivoli FastBack but were completely surprised when it 
didn't support ext4 filesystems or filesystems >2TB!  From the "*FastBack 
Client and BMR Hardware Requirements"*

Linux Client only supports Simple & Simple LVM volumes. File system
supports: EXT2, EXT3 and Reiser FS

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Grigori Solonovitch < 
grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com> wrote:

> Hello Eric,
> We are using CBMR (without TSM initially) and TBMR now for many years 
> without any problems. We have restored a few production servers after 
> real crash including dissimilar configuration.
> After moving to VMware there is no problem at all. We have just 
> uploaded TBMR ISO images to all VMware hosts to speed up recovery 
> (without CD-ROM drive).
> Support from UK is very good. Licenses and support are not free, but 
> they have some specially license policy for VMware to reduce cost in 
> comparison with standalone licenses.
> In addition, they have presented Recovery Simulator recently. It 
> allows to simulate recovery in VMware environment (backup testing 
> without touching real VMs) for most valuable VMs or keep it scheduled at all.
> I have no experience with FastBack and couldn't compare products.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank 
> Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
> Sent: 18 11 2014 11:30 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR
>
> Fellow TSM-ers,
> We are looking for a bare machine recovery, primarily for Windows and 
> Linux servers. There seem to be two main products on the market when 
> using
> TSM: Tivoli's own Fastback for Bare Machine Recovery and the third 
> party product Cristie Bare Machine Recovery which seems to be tightly 
> integrated into TSM.
> As far as I can judge from reading documentation, some YouTube video's 
> and a live demo of the Cristie product the latter seems a lot easier 
> to use and implement, but I haven't had any hands-on experience of course.
> Has anyone compared the two products, maybe in a live situation? What 
> are their pros and cons?
> Thank you very much for you reply in advance!
> Kind regards,
> Eric van Loon
> AF/KLM Storage Engineering
> 
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain 
> confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. 
> If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the 
> e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and 
> that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly 
> prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by 
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this 
> message.
>
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or 
> its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete 
> transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay 
> in receipt.
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal 
> Dutch
> Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with 
> registered number 33014286
> 
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
>
> 
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information contained in this 
> electronic mail message and any attachments hereto may be legally 
> privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the 
> recipient(s) named in this message. If you are not the intended 
> recipient you are notified that any use, disclosure, copying or 
> distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error please 
> contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from 
> your computer system. We do not guarantee that this message or any 
> attachment to it is secure or free from errors, computer viruses or 
> other conditions that may damage or interfere with data, hardware or software.
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
BigBro / Hobbit / Xymon Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zfor

Re: Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR

2014-11-19 Thread Zoltan Forray
Wanda,

Thanks for confirming what I suspected.  We briefly looked at Fastback BMR
thinking we could use it for image-style/BMR backups after someone torqued
up a Linux server so badly, they had to rebuild from scratch.  Once we saw
the "no ext4 and the OS has to be ext2" requirements/limitations, we
dropped it.

Sounds like it has very little use in a TSM environment.  I guess you could
run BMR backups parallel with TSM backups, solely for the purpose of BMR,
but since it doesn't sync with the TSM backups,  not sure how much good it
would be other than a 2nd or 3rd safety-net..

Anybody out there using FastBack BMR?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Prather, Wanda 
wrote:

> Fastback is also a separate server, which backs up to disk only.
> It uses your regular TSM server to replicate to, but it's really
> reinventing the wheel if you already have regular TSM clients in place.
> Fastback BMR isn't something you add on to your normal TSM clients.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Zoltan Forray
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:07 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR
>
> We looked into using Tivoli FastBack but were completely surprised when it
> didn't support ext4 filesystems or filesystems >2TB!  From the "*FastBack
> Client and BMR Hardware Requirements"*
>
> Linux Client only supports Simple & Simple LVM volumes. File system
> supports: EXT2, EXT3 and Reiser FS
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Grigori Solonovitch <
> grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Eric,
> > We are using CBMR (without TSM initially) and TBMR now for many years
> > without any problems. We have restored a few production servers after
> > real crash including dissimilar configuration.
> > After moving to VMware there is no problem at all. We have just
> > uploaded TBMR ISO images to all VMware hosts to speed up recovery
> > (without CD-ROM drive).
> > Support from UK is very good. Licenses and support are not free, but
> > they have some specially license policy for VMware to reduce cost in
> > comparison with standalone licenses.
> > In addition, they have presented Recovery Simulator recently. It
> > allows to simulate recovery in VMware environment (backup testing
> > without touching real VMs) for most valuable VMs or keep it scheduled at
> all.
> > I have no experience with FastBack and couldn't compare products.
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Grigori Solonovitch, Senior Systems Architect, IT, Ahli United Bank
> > Kuwait, www.ahliunited.com.kw
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Loon, EJ van (ITOPT3) - KLM
> > Sent: 18 11 2014 11:30 AM
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] Cristie BMR vs Tivoli Fastback for BMR
> >
> > Fellow TSM-ers,
> > We are looking for a bare machine recovery, primarily for Windows and
> > Linux servers. There seem to be two main products on the market when
> > using
> > TSM: Tivoli's own Fastback for Bare Machine Recovery and the third
> > party product Cristie Bare Machine Recovery which seems to be tightly
> > integrated into TSM.
> > As far as I can judge from reading documentation, some YouTube video's
> > and a live demo of the Cristie product the latter seems a lot easier
> > to use and implement, but I haven't had any hands-on experience of
> course.
> > Has anyone compared the two products, maybe in a live situation? What
> > are their pros and cons?
> > Thank you very much for you reply in advance!
> > Kind regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> > AF/KLM Storage Engineering
> > 
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only.
> > If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the
> > e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and
> > that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
> > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete
> this message.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or
> > its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any
> delay in receipt.
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch
> > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> > 
> >
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
> >
> > 
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY AND WAIVER: The information co