Andrew Raibeck wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> I am happy to hear that you found my presentation materials useful! :-)
>
> Question regarding your statement:
>
> > ... but in fact I wasn't looking for a way to
> > exclude the whole drive ...
>
> Your original question seemed to regard how to exclude the e:
Hi Michal,
I am happy to hear that you found my presentation materials useful! :-)
Question regarding your statement:
> ... but in fact I wasn't looking for a way to
> exclude the whole drive ...
Your original question seemed to regard how to exclude the e: drive... if
you did not want to exclu
Minor correction and comment to my prior post on this subject:
CORRECTION
In my prior note on this subject, I wrote:
So between those two EXCLUDE statements, just about everything on z: is
excluded. The lone exception, that you can't bypass, is the root of z:
itself. Thus the first time you run:
> I do not mean to be disagreeable, but my testing has indicated that you
> cannot exclude a drive in Windows with an exclude or exclude.dir
> command. I use the domain -z: and that works.
Well yes and no. It depends on how rigidly or loosely you define the
word "exclude". The short answer is
Thank you.
I have restarted TSM scheduler services and it has now worked as
expected. I would have expected that the change would be effective if I
have run through the wizard in the BA Client and it said 'Scheduler
service successfully updated'. I got the clue after seeing slide 6 from
Raibeck's
This seems to be a change in behavior in 5.3. Both CHECKOUT LIBV and MOVE DRM
with REM=BULK work somewhat differently. I notice that
on the checkouts a scan of the I/O BULK port is done first, then the tape is
moved to an available port. On the fast 3584 library,
this doesn't add that much time t
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:24:32PM -0700, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote:
> I am assuming that changing remove=yes to remove=bulk will fix the issue of
> the system waiting for a reply and if the I/O port becomes full it will
> continue to wait till they are removed and the port made available again. I
>
Well here is yet another new one for me. I run this to eject tapes and it
creates a file that the mainframe uses to create a list of tapes going to
the vault. With the 3494 and TSM 5.2 there is nothing else to do. Today I
ran this for the first time with a 3584 and TSM 5.3.3 and only one tape
eject
I do not mean to be disagreeable, but my testing has indicated that you
cannot exclude a drive in Windows with an exclude or exclude.dir
command. I use the domain -z: and that works.
This may also have to do with versions and other stuff.
Andy Huebner
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist
