, Geoffrey L.
Sent: woensdag 26 april 2006 21:10
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: multiple tape processes for offsite volumes
To explain further.
If "a single node" has backed up 700GB it looks to me like it is
impossible to force multiple processes to an offsite pool unless somehow
part o
al Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Schaub, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:16 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: multiple tape processes for offsite volumes
Geoff,
Which specific process are you referring to? I'm assuming you arent
On Apr 26, 2006, at 1:13 PM, David E Ehresman wrote:
"backup stgpool" has had the maxprocess parm for some time now. ...
Indeed so. The fly in the ointment is that you don't necessarily get
the number of processes you specify, for architectural reasons.
See contemporary IBM Technote 1234463.
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gill, Geoffrey L.
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:24 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] multiple tape processes for offsite volumes
One of the issues I have had with TSM is the inability for it to run
multiple processes
"backup stgpool" has had the maxprocess parm for some time now. Now
sure which release it came in at but it was certainly there at 5.2 and
is still there at 5.3.
David Ehresman
University of Louisville
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/26/2006 11:23:41 AM >>>
One of the issues I have had with TSM is the i
One of the issues I have had with TSM is the inability for it to run
multiple processes from a single disk storage pool to a pool designated to
go offsite. With 5.3 out I was wondering if that has changed, haven't seen
anything yet to think not but maybe I missed it, or if we're still stuck
with th
offsite volume.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Godfrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Offsite volumes
What happens to data on offsite volumes when the time has come to expire the
data from TSM
>What happens to data on offsite volumes when the time has come to expire the
>data from TSM? Does TSM delete the entry from the database even though the
>offsite volume is unavailable, thus rendering the file on the offsite volume
>as unrecoverable even though the file still exists on
>Is there a way to search in the client or the server to obtain a list of all
>the different versions of a certain file stored in TSM? When I search using
>the search function in the client I can only see the latest version of a
>file, or by using a point-in-time date an older version. I can't find
Is there a way to search in the client or the server to obtain a list of all
the different versions of a certain file stored in TSM? When I search using
the search function in the client I can only see the latest version of a
file, or by using a point-in-time date an older version. I can't find a w
What happens to data on offsite volumes when the time has come to expire the
data from TSM? Does TSM delete the entry from the database even though the
offsite volume is unavailable, thus rendering the file on the offsite volume
as unrecoverable even though the file still exists on the offsite
ll of the move data's that are treating their input volume as
> 'offsite'
>- issue an 'audit v' command for each of the copy pool volumes being
> treated as 'offsite'
>- each audit volume process fails with the following message:
> ANR2456E AUDIT
L PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: SQL to determine what offsite volumes are needed for move
data
...
>Our tape copy pools are kept offsite. Reclamation for these pools is
>handled by leaving the TSM reclamation threshhold at 100% so that he
never
>does reclaims on his own. O
TECTED]
Subject: SQL to determine what offsite volumes are needed for move data
Hi,
We're running TSM server 5.1.6.2 on z/OS.
One of the (many) resources we're short on is tape drives. Consequently,
I'm always looking to streamline processes that use these drives. Here's
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Richard Sims wrote:
> >Now the problem. Some of these 'move data' processes treat the volume
> >that is being emptied as 'offsite', even though the volume has been loaded
> >into the library and its access updated to readwrite. I'm pretty sure the
> >reason for this is that
...
>Our tape copy pools are kept offsite. Reclamation for these pools is
>handled by leaving the TSM reclamation threshhold at 100% so that he never
>does reclaims on his own. On a regular basis, we run a job that queries
>the server for copy pool tapes with a reclamation threshhold greater than
y pool volume needs to be brought
onsite in order to make a move data process treat the original volume to
be emptied as an onsite volume
- go get the additional offsite volumes needed, load them into the
library, update their access to readwrite, and issue move data commands
for the origin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.COM> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Offsite Volumes
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
One common cause for this is that you are running delete volhist on your db backups
rather than letting DRM handle it (or with a shorter retention than DRM does). TSM
then forgets about the DB backup tapes that are offsite.
HTH
Steve Harris
AIX and TSM Admin
Queensland Health, Brisbane Austral
Hello Marcel, Please take a look here and select Media Manager,
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/tivoliready/storage.html
greetings
Peter
At 23:23 10-3-2003 +0100, Marcel J.E. Mol wrote:
We see the same thing. Last week we took all ofsite tapes for a
disaster test and found 18 out of
David, thanks for the email. See my responses below. (Using caps to
differentiate answers not to shout.)
Mahesh
Mahesh Tailor
WAN/NetView/TSM Administrator
Carilion Health System
Voice: 540-224-3929
Fax: 540-224-3954
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/10/03 17:14 PM >>>
Yes, I have seen this and there are
** High Priority **
we too facing same problem and recently we did manual volume inventory, recoverd
300tapes.
please provide if anyone got solution.
thanks
/mani
>>> "Marcel J.E. Mol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/10/03 05:23PM >>>
We see the same thing. Last week we took all ofsite tapes for a
disas
We see the same thing. Last week we took all ofsite tapes for a
disaster test and found 18 out of 50 were not listed in q drme.
I cannot guarantee that the tape operators did not make mistakes
and we will double check in the coming weeks but it sure sound as
a lot of lost tapes.
I suspect that it
ck?
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh Tailor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Offsite Volumes
Hello!
TSM 5.1.6.2 on AIX 4.3.3.10
I am running DRM and I am seeing large discrepancies in what I have
offsite and what TSM reports as
Yes, I have seen this and there are a number of reasons
that can cause this.
1. Are you using DRM to expire the DB
tape? You should be, if not that can be a cause.
2. How detailed are your operations people and your
tape return procedure? Example: if ops is using the
"Move DRM " command to re
Do you include the database tapes in reporting and bringing back?
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh Tailor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Offsite Volumes
Hello!
TSM 5.1.6.2 on AIX 4.3.3.10
I am running DRM and I am seeing
Hello!
TSM 5.1.6.2 on AIX 4.3.3.10
I am running DRM and I am seeing large discrepancies in what I have
offsite and what TSM reports as being offsite.
I run a q drm wherest=vault [or a select statement] and compare the list
to the physical tapes offsite and they don't match. About 8 weeks ago,
w
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:01:12 +0200, it was written:
>in the process of moving backup volumes offsite volume U11108 was
>successfully moved to VAULT
>09/27/01 10:24:22 ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume U11108 was moved from
>
> NOTMOUNTABLE state to VAULT.
>
>however the recla
L&g
in the process of moving backup volumes offsite volume U11108 was
successfully moved to VAULT
09/27/01 10:24:22 ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume U11108 was moved from
NOTMOUNTABLE state to VAULT.
however the reclamation process also selected this tape !?
09/
: (Blindkopie: Gerhard Wolkerstorfer/DEBIS/EDVG/AT)
Thema:Re: *SMs Thinking of OFFSITE Volumes ?
n [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopie: (Blindkopie: Gerhard Wolkerstorfer/DEBIS/EDVG/AT)
Thema:Re: *SMs Thinking of OFFSITE Volumes ?
It works the same without DRM. Lower the Reclamation value on the offsite
pool. As a fresh version of the copypool is being created, the old one
34.8230
>Fax:321.434.5525
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/08/01 05:25AM >>>
>Hi *SMer,
>We are reclaiming OFFSITE-Volumes, when they reach a Reclamation Threshold
>of 60
>Percent.
>Therefor following steps are being done:
&g
]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/08/01 05:25AM >>>
Hi *SMer,
We are reclaiming OFFSITE-Volumes, when they reach a Reclamation Threshold of 60
Percent.
Therefor following steps are being done:
1) All pertaining OFFSITE Volumes come in from the offsite Location.
2) Following SQL Stmt wil
Hi *SMer,
We are reclaiming OFFSITE-Volumes, when they reach a Reclamation Threshold of 60
Percent.
Therefor following steps are being done:
1) All pertaining OFFSITE Volumes come in from the offsite Location.
2) Following SQL Stmt will be performed for each Volume: (Setting the Access of
the
Message-
> From: Ray Baughman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 10 August 2000 5:18
> Subject: Offsite volumes going to scratch
>
>
> >Hello All,
> >
> >I have recently upgraded from ADSM 3.1.2 to TSM 3.7. I
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 August 2000 5:18
Subject: Offsite volumes going to scratch
>Hello All,
>
>I have recently upgraded from ADSM 3.1.2 to TSM 3.7. I do not use DSM, so
I
>rely on offsite volumes going from pending to
ll,
>
> I have recently upgraded from ADSM 3.1.2 to TSM 3.7. I do not use DSM, so I
> rely on offsite volumes going from pending to empty to determine which
> volumes to bring back on site. My problem is that since I upgraded to TSM
> 3.7, the offsite volumes do not go from pendi
Hello All,
I have recently upgraded from ADSM 3.1.2 to TSM 3.7. I do not use DSM, so I
rely on offsite volumes going from pending to empty to determine which
volumes to bring back on site. My problem is that since I upgraded to TSM
3.7, the offsite volumes do not go from pending to empty, they
38 matches
Mail list logo
