TSM User group meeting May 12, Columbia SC.

[Ken Bury]

For agenda and sign-up information go to the http://tivoli-ug.org/ site or
click this link: http://bit.ly/QBq3NM

--
Ken Bury

kenb...@us.ibm.com

Re: file system backups of a Dell NDMP Equallogic device

[Ken Bury]

Actually IBM does consider backup and ILM in the GPFS file system. Now with
the new NFS integration features in GPFS V4.1 the errors of your NAS ways
can be corrected.

kenb...@us.ibm.com


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Skylar Thompson wrote:

> I so wish we could do this. Unfortunately, backups/restores are considered
> an
> afterthought both by the vendors and customer management. In general, data
> lifecycle management has gotten to be a thornier problem over the years,
> and a lot of people deal with that by ignoring it until it's a serious
> issue.
>
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:30:23PM +, Prather, Wanda wrote:
> > Taking opportunity to mount soapbox on this issue:
> >
> > I have SO many customer that are facing this problem.
> > Vendors of giant NAS devices *should* be providing better, decent
> solutions to back them up.
> > It's very do-able, it's just that crappy vendors don't care what they
> dump on you.
> >
> > NetApp, for example, has implemented their SnapDiff API that provides
> true incrementals, and it works.
> > I have no other reason to plug NetApp, I'm just pointing out that other
> vendors could do the same thing, if they wanted to - it's not impossible.
> >
> > I know, in most cases backup folks have hardware dropped on us without
> any input into the purchase, and we are just stuck with it.
> > BUT the only thing that is going to solve this industry-wide problem in
> the long run, is whenever tech people hear there is a purchase going down,
> we step in and tell management STOP! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!?, and boycott
> vendors who inflict bad technology on us when they could do better.
> >
> > Soapbox off.
> >
> > W
>
> --
> -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu)
> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> -- University of Washington School of Medicine
>



--
Ken Bury

Re: TSM/CMS

[Ken Bury]

The data mover logs are huge part of troubleshooting a VE setup.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:29 PM Robert Jose  wrote:

> Hi David
> We currently do not support TSM/VE Windows Datamover nodes. Only
> "traditional" backup-archive clients are supported for the client
> diagnostic functions. How important is it to include other  clients (like
> VE)?
>
> Rob Jose
> TSM OC UI Developer / L3 Support
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 04/14/2015
> 10:00:12 AM:
>
> > From: David Ehresman 
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 04/14/2015 10:01 AM
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM/CMS
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
> >
> > Is TSM/CMS supported for TSM/VE Windows Datamover nodes?
> >
> > David
> >

Re: Operations Center processor requirements

[Ken Bury]

Another thing to consider is that there has to be a TSM server designated
as the hub. The version of the hub server will have to match the OC. The
spoke servers can be at lower version than the hub. So if it was my system
I would have a server with the TSM hub server along with the OC. This way I
am free to upgrade the OC and hub server without worrying about my
production TSM server versions.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, 12:41 Robert Jose  wrote:

>
>  Hi Thomas
>  This tool is "reasonably" accurate, but we do err on the side of
> specifying more processor capacity to ensure that enough headroom is
> provided. The
>  developer of the tool says that the processor requirement for the library
> manager is actually much less than 1 core, but we "floor" our estimates at
>  1 processor core to keep the estimates sane and to make sure that we are
> covered in an extreme case. You can probably get away with much less.
>
>
>
>
> Rob Jose
> TSM OC UI Developer / L3 Support
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 06/09/2015
> 08:12:20 AM:
>
> > From: Thomas Denier 
> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > Date: 06/09/2015 08:14 AM
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] Operations Center processor requirements
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
> >
> > We recently had an IBM presentation on the future of TSM. The
> > presenter told us that Operations Center was going to change our
> > minds about needing a third party management facility for TSM (we
> > currently use TSMManager). My management has asked me to check on
> > the requirements for installing Operations Center. I found an IBM
> > tool for estimating Operations Center resource requirements at:
> >
> > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21641684&aid=1
> >
> > I requested estimates for a configuration with Operations Center on
> > a separate server. The Operations Center host is predicted to need a
> > tenth of a processor core. Each TSM instance is predicted to need at
> > least one processor core to support the Operations Center. The
> > estimate for the hub instance sometimes reaches 1.1 cores, depending
> > on the estimates of administrator activity levels.
> >
> > We have three production TSM server instances (one of them a
> > dedicated library manager) split across two z10 systems with two
> > IFL's each. The predictions from the IBM tool imply that interaction
> > with the Operations Center will consume all of the processor
> > capacity on the system with the library manager and half of the
> > processor capacity on the other system.
> >
> > Are the estimates from the IBM tool reasonably accurate?
> >
> > Thomas Denier
> > Thomas Jefferson University
> > The information contained in this transmission contains privileged
> > and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the
> > person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> > duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are
> > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> > and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> > CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for
> > emergent or urgent health care matters.
> >

Re: Operations Center processor requirements

[Ken Bury]

There are licensing considerations depending on what type of licensing
model you have subscribed to. The value of this architecture is the
flexibility you have to stay current with the OC updates.



On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:25 AM Erwann SIMON  wrote:

> Hi Ken,
>
> Do you mean that you would have a TSM server that would be dedicated to be
> the hub server, without having any other role (except maybe lib manager
> and/or config manager) ?
>
> In that case, how would I consider the licence for this server, with no
> client registered ?
>
> --
> Best regards / Cordialement / مع تحياتي
> Erwann SIMON
>
> - Mail original -
> De: "Ken Bury" 
> À: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 03:54:37
> Objet: Re: [ADSM-L] Operations Center processor requirements
>
> Another thing to consider is that there has to be a TSM server designated
> as the hub. The version of the hub server will have to match the OC. The
> spoke servers can be at lower version than the hub. So if it was my system
> I would have a server with the TSM hub server along with the OC. This way I
> am free to upgrade the OC and hub server without worrying about my
> production TSM server versions.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, 12:41 Robert Jose  wrote:
>
> >
> >  Hi Thomas
> >  This tool is "reasonably" accurate, but we do err on the side of
> > specifying more processor capacity to ensure that enough headroom is
> > provided. The
> >  developer of the tool says that the processor requirement for the
> library
> > manager is actually much less than 1 core, but we "floor" our estimates
> at
> >  1 processor core to keep the estimates sane and to make sure that we are
> > covered in an extreme case. You can probably get away with much less.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rob Jose
> > TSM OC UI Developer / L3 Support
> >
> > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"  wrote on 06/09/2015
> > 08:12:20 AM:
> >
> > > From: Thomas Denier 
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Date: 06/09/2015 08:14 AM
> > > Subject: [ADSM-L] Operations Center processor requirements
> > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 
> > >
> > > We recently had an IBM presentation on the future of TSM. The
> > > presenter told us that Operations Center was going to change our
> > > minds about needing a third party management facility for TSM (we
> > > currently use TSMManager). My management has asked me to check on
> > > the requirements for installing Operations Center. I found an IBM
> > > tool for estimating Operations Center resource requirements at:
> > >
> > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21641684&aid=1
> > >
> > > I requested estimates for a configuration with Operations Center on
> > > a separate server. The Operations Center host is predicted to need a
> > > tenth of a processor core. Each TSM instance is predicted to need at
> > > least one processor core to support the Operations Center. The
> > > estimate for the hub instance sometimes reaches 1.1 cores, depending
> > > on the estimates of administrator activity levels.
> > >
> > > We have three production TSM server instances (one of them a
> > > dedicated library manager) split across two z10 systems with two
> > > IFL's each. The predictions from the IBM tool imply that interaction
> > > with the Operations Center will consume all of the processor
> > > capacity on the system with the library manager and half of the
> > > processor capacity on the other system.
> > >
> > > Are the estimates from the IBM tool reasonably accurate?
> > >
> > > Thomas Denier
> > > Thomas Jefferson University
> > > The information contained in this transmission contains privileged
> > > and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the
> > > person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> > > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> > > duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are
> > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> > > and destroy all copies of the original message.
> > >
> > > CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for
> > > emergent or urgent health care matters.
> > >
>

Re: Real world deduplication rates with TSM 7.1 and container pools

[Ken Bury]

I have two 7.1.4 servers, one with devclass file with dedupe, and the other
is using containers. The two servers are in a node replication pair so the
data on each server is exactly the same. The workload is almost exclusively
vmware backups with datamover dedupe and compression. The data reduction
for both pools is 89%. I like what I am getting from container pools and
replication.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:35 Ryder, Michael S 
wrote:

> Hi Arnaud
>
> If IBM made that commitment in black and white, then you should hold their
> feet to the fire.  But I am willing to bet this was a salesman promising
> "similar performance."
>
> There is no technology I know where any deduplication factor can be
> guaranteed.  Perhaps "UP to 4" for certain kinds of data...  And overall
> reduction of storage is what you should be comparing, not simply the
> deduplication percentage.
>
> Here, try reading at least the introduction of this document, " Effective
> Planning and Use of TSM V6 and V7 Deduplication"
>
>
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/form/anonymous/api/wiki/f731037e-c0cf-436e-88b5-862b9a6597c3/page/82e361b4-8e96-42cf-b559-0b77df9aed2c/attachment/5cf980b3-807f-464b-a1c0-b896b0cec7e6/media/TSM%20Dedup%20Best%20Practices%20-%20v2.1.pdf
>
> We haven't adopted the directory-container pools yet due to their lacking
> of support for important features like migration and copy pools, but I have
> no doubt that IBM will be delivering those abilities soon; otherwise, there
> are very limited use-cases for directory-containers.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
> RMD IT Client Services
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM, PAC Brion Arnaud <
> arnaud.br...@panalpina.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We are currently testing TSM 7.1 deduplication feature, in conjunction
> > with container based storage pools.
> > So far, my test TSM instances, installed with such a setup are reporting
> > dedup percentage of 45 %, means dedup factor around 1.81, using a sample
> of
> > clients which are representative of our production environment.
> > This is unfortunately pretty far from what was promised by IBM (dedup
> > factor of 4) ...
> >
> > I'm wondering if anybody making use of container based storage pools and
> > deduplication would be sharing his deduplication factor, so that I could
> > have a better appreciation of real world figures.
> > If you would be so kind to share your information (possibly with the kind
> > of backed-up data  i.e. VM, DB, NAS, Exchange, and retention values ...)
> I
> > would be very grateful !
> >
> > Thanks in advance for appreciated feedback.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> >
> >
> **
> > Backup and Recovery Systems Administrator
> > Panalpina Management Ltd., Basle, Switzerland,
> > CIT Department Viadukstrasse 42, P.O. Box 4002 Basel/CH
> > Phone: +41 (61) 226 11 11, FAX: +41 (61) 226 17 01
> > Direct: +41 (61) 226 19 78
> > e-mail: arnaud.br...@panalpina.com
> > This electronic message transmission contains information from Panalpina
> > and is confidential or privileged. This information is intended only for
> > the person (s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use or any other action based on the
> > contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
> >
> > If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify the
> > sender by e-mail, telephone or fax at the numbers listed above. Thank
> you.
> >
> >
> **
> >
> >
>
--
Ken

Re: IBM bureaucracy strikes again

[Ken Bury]

You can email s...@us.ibm.com with your suggestions and comments. There
are a number of tutorial videos that introduce the new IBM Support
Portal concepts, check those out too.
https://www-950.ibm.com/blogs/SPNA/entry/the_ibm_support_portal_videos?lang=en_us

Ken Bury
Senior IT Specialist,
Tivoli Storage Software Sales
kb...@us.ibm.com

On 12/22/2009 11:36 AM, Wanda Prather wrote:

OK.  Can someone on the list, or someone from Tivoli who monitors this list,
give us a contact point within IBM where we can take these complaints?

We should be bombarding them directly...


On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Kelly Lipp  wrote:



I particularly enjoy the ten product limit.

Kelly Lipp
Chief Technology Officer
www.storserver.com
719-266-8777 x7105
STORServer solves your data backup challenges.
Once and for all.


-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Paul Zarnowski
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:57 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] IBM bureaucracy strikes again

Yet another change.  Every time they "improve" things, they make it harder
for us to find the same information we used to be able to get at.

I'll give this a try before passing judgement.  It looks like they are
going to a portal model where you can customize your own experience.

At 08:30 AM 12/22/2009, Richard Sims wrote:


If you haven't been to the TSM Support Page (


http://www.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTivoliStorageManager.html)
very recently, you'll be dismayed to learn that this helpfully
product-specific page is going away - being replaced by a generalized
facility which you get to from the current TSM Support Page by scrolling
down a very long list of products to find TSM, then select one category of
things you want to see, then wait for their website to grind and produce a
page with just that information.  You can navigate to other sub-areas from
the left pane, but it can entail considerable delays.  And because it's
generalized, there's no page title to quickly let you know you're looking at
TSM stuff.


Someone at IBM will probably get a bonus this year for thinking up this


method of improving IBM's internal web pages organization ... by
obliterating the tailored product page that we all found so useful over the
years, where we could quickly get at information we needed.  IBM
management's focus seems to be on satisfying organizational directions more
than best meeting customer needs.


Richard Sims



--
Paul ZarnowskiPh: 607-255-4757
Manager, Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521
719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801Em: p...@cornell.edu

Re: Tsm operations center v7.1.0

[Ken Bury]

You need a hub server at v7.1. It will let you upgrade but you will not be
able to use it until you get a v7.1 hub. BTW the upgrade is super fast. The
TSM server upgrade was also easy in my environment.
On Dec 17, 2013 1:55 PM, "Robert Ouzen"  wrote:

> Hello all
>
> Can I install TSM operations Center V7.1.0 over my Version 6.4.1 when
> still my servers backup  are  at version 6.3.4.200 . Planning to upgrade
> them later to version 7.1.0
>
> Or need first to upgrade the servers before ?
>
> Regards Robert
>