Yes it still works that way when you don't specify a DIRMC.
Kyle
fred johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the
longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special
group of machines with all sorts of special han
Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the
longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special
group of machines with all sorts of special handling. I've used DIRMC to
ensure the directory of some desktop doesn't get treated in the same way.
At 01:
h 19, 2005 3:17 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Paul,
It is definitely, absolutely, positively, seen it myself - fixed
Been
fixed for years. Forget DIRMC.
Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist St
Paul,
Using a separate pool for directories is something that many have been doing
for a long time and just kept doing even after IBM implemented the new
directory restore method (restore order processing). If you look at a
directory as a small file then you can see why keeping it in a separate
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
> issues resolved or not.
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have
> done long ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate
> directories are created
Hi Richard,
I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have done long
ago). It does indeed suggest that surrogate directories are created and the
real directories are restored as they are hit.
Has anyone really observed this to be genuinely true? I have in the past
observed the doub
Paul -
This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. We've
discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on it in ADSM
QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to further pursuit
in IBM doc.
Richard Simshttp://people.bu.edu/rbs
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Pau
into
this on multiple occasions, even when all files were on disk, tape mounts
would occur because the directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re:
DU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I hav
Storage pools consist of one or more volumes, generally disk or tape.
The storage pool gets its volumes via the device class which has a
maxscr setting to limit the volume count and max capacity to estimate or
assign the max size of the volume. The device class also points to a
directory which in t
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Steve Bennett might have said:
> Wanda,
>
> I just added a sata disk array in TSM v5.2 so I'll jump in here.
>
> If you are using one disk partition in Windows for the device class then
> you can let TSM define the number of vols it needs up to maxscr or out
> of disk conditio
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:38:16AM -0500, Richard Sims wrote:
> blocks of 256 KiB minimum...". Could you provide a documentation or web
> site reference for that 5.3 change?
No, sorry. Just the info I received through the PMR. I made the suggestion
to include this in e.g. a README, and that sugge
n but this is not the case (at least on windows, on 5.2.2.4
- discussed on the list).
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:09 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
r
Tim/Steve
Thanks - got it!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:17 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
1. You
ED]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:49 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
Tim:
We are looking at using all disk now for our onsite disk pool with our
next capital$ buy.
Something I've never been sure of -
Whenf you u
it somehow?
Thanks
Wanda
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed
2) Do reclaims happen by themselves, or do you have to force it somehow?
Thanks
Wanda
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rushforth, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclam
Jurjen -
In this thread, and the "Minor gotcha on upgrade to 5.3" thread, you
indicate that TSM 5.3 has changed things such that "...the handling of
FILE volumes was changed. All writes to such a volume is now done in
blocks of 256 KiB minimum...". Could you provide a documentation or web
site refe
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:29:50PM -0600, Rushforth, Tim wrote:
[DIRMC]
> What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
Probably the fact that sequential volumes are written to in blocks of at
least 256 KB, even when the data is only 1500 bytes. This can cause a lot of
overhead, and the effecti
- Original Message -
in a much faster backup. Now all that being said this new feature in V5.3
warrents new consideration. My new consideration is to stop using DIRMC
pools as the reason they were created in the first place has also long been
fixed.
Which reason is this that has been fixe
directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-Original Message-
From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file type
device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned from
begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers that
have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool. Even when none ch
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:31 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
It is fixed (somewhere around 5.1.5.2).
-Original Message-
From: Thorneycroft, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:25 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or
not.
OK, after spending a large portion
24 matches
Mail list logo
