A software bug in Windows XP or TSM? Seems like Windows XP is "touching"
those files therefore making TSM assume they have been modified in some
secret strange way. If that's the case, put them in the exclude list.
-
Tom Walker
-Original Message-
From: Lawson, Jerry W (ETSD, IT) [mailto:
r own code to
process it.
SELECT * from volumes where volume_name='vv'
Paul D. Seay, Jr.
Technical Specialist
Naptheon Inc.
757-688-8180
-Original Message-
From: Walker, Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi there,
I need the gurus help on this. I know my 3494 library keeps track of how
many mounts each 3590 tape endures, but I was wondering if there was a way
through tsm to find that out as well, most likely I assume through TSM/SQL.
I'm looking for:
Number of mounts for each tape
Number of writ
SSH is a much better way to talk remotely with a unix based machine.
Everything (including your login id and password) is encrypted. Plus the SSH
suite includes sftp with is ftp without the clear text passwords flying
around the internet. Also, I believe that the newer versions of TSM have 128
bit
It's the time elapsed when data was actually being transferred. Is the case
below, it looks like there is a lot of time when either the client or the
server was doing something else besides transferring data during the event.
-
Tom Walker
-Original Message-
From: Wholey, Joseph (TGA\MLO
And using another backup solution won't result in many tape mounts as well?
TSM might be more mounts than others, but you only have to do one restore.
Remember, not using incremental forever means that you must resotre a
machine at least two times. How about using backup sets if time is that much
So how many time do you transfer the file across the network before you
compress it? Why not just keep the file on the unix server the whole time?
Pretty flashy winzip is slow and doesn't compress as much as gzip either.
-Original Message-
From: Gill, Geoffrey L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
You won't usually get a reliable result from e2fsck without unmounting the
filesystem first. Since's it appears that this is the /home partition, maybe
you should logout all normal users and umount /home and rerun e2fsck to make
sure there REALLY are no errors on the filesystem. ReiserFS works
bea
>From admin command line:
setopt maxsession <#_of_sessions>
No server cycle needed! :-)
Check with 'q opt'
-
Tom Walker
Technical Supprt Analyst
EMI Recorded Music, NA
-Original Message-
From: Cook, Dwight E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:40 AM
To: [EM
Yeah we just make the command object
c:\progra~1\tivoli\tsm\tdpsql\yourscript.cmd
Spaces in files names and directories still seem so stupid to me.
-
Tom Walker
> -Original Message-
> From: Del Hoobler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:27 AM
> To: [EMA
rsh is pretty similiar to rexec. The main difference is that rexec uses
$HOME/.netrc to determine access and rsh uses $HOME/.rhosts
The command would be
rsh server1
Just like rexec.
A sample .rhosts file would be
server1 user1
server2 user2
and so on.
If you run SP you can kerberize your u
We had a similiar problem here also. We found out that our fifth and sixth
3590 drives were exceeding the recommended scsi cable length with all the
daisy chains. We added another scsi card and all is well.
-
Tom Walker
Technical Support Analyst
> -Original Message-
> From: William Boyer
Just the normal incrementals is fine. TSM does the magic behind the scenes
to determine what files were on the system on the date specified!
-
Tom Walker
> -Original Message-
> From: Dearman, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTEC
Also in the FAQ, I noticed that is does not *yet* support restoring to
dissimiliar hardware. Considering that a true Disaster Recovery will
probably take place in slightly different systems, I find it a little odd
the BMR still doesn't support that yet. The hardest thing to do is restore
NT machin
We've found E304 to be very good. We had many failed mounts until we applied
E304.
-
Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: Debbie Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANR8359E ANR8830E
>
>
> We are at D25D, I am going t
> the problem still
> exist.
>
> Dave Pearson
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Walker, Thomas [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 5:50 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: AIX Server - What'
I spoke with Tivoli yesterday. They recommend going to 4.1.3 Has anyone done
that? Have the archives become more reasonable? Ours were taking nearly 3
DAYS to complete!! Once again I'm stuck on the bleeding edge and before I
jump to 4.1.3 I'd like some proof that it will do something.
-
Tom Walker
No there isn't as far as I know. However, running collocation is a good idea
in my opinion. Restores used to be a nightmare with up to 50 mounts!
Transfer 100k of data, switch tapes, transfer 5k of data . . . etc. It was
nearly useless! Once we started collocation, mounts dropped considerably
some
Call me a Unix junkie, but I prefer this little Unix Command from a prompt
# dsmadmc -id=admin -pass=*** 'q libv' | grep Scratch | awk '{print
$3,$2}' | cat -n
Output looks like this.
1 Scratch 021814
2 Scratch 021817
3 Scratch 021837
4 Scratch 021852
5 Scratc
We had so many problems with TSM Client 4.1.2 that we back levelled
to 3.7.2 We run AIX Server 4.1.2 and AIX CLient 3.7.2 and API 3.7.2 Aside
from our Atape.bin problems (which give useless error messages until we
update our Atape driver) everything's running smoothly.
-
Tom Walker
20 matches
Mail list logo
