ginal Message-
From: Kevin Kettner
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 4:42 PM
To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
Subject: RE: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Thanks for the info!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
SG7&myns=swgtiv
Regards, Uwe
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Kevin Kettner
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Mai 2021 17:55
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
I wanted to send you guys an update o
Thanks for the info!
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 10:54 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Hi Kevin,
i got following Information
l Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 1:32 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
I received the information, that APAR IT36573 is NOT included in 8.1.12.
It is pla
Schreiber
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 1:32 AM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with
> dedup pool
>
> I received the information, that APAR IT36573 is NOT included in 8.1.12.
> It is planned to include that APAR
Kettner
Sent: Dienstag, 27. April 2021 23:17
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
It's not on the fixes list for 8.1.12.000 so I guess that's probably a no.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6447173
-Origin
: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
It's not on the fixes list for 8.1.12.000 so I guess that's probably a no.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6447173
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Kettner
Sen
um protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
That is related to APAR IT36573.
Michael already mentioned the eFix versions which provide a fix for that
"feature".
Regards, Uwe
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Michael Prix
Sent: Freitag, 23. April
Does anyone know if this eFix is included in 8.1.12.000 that just came out?
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager On Behalf Of Uwe Schreiber
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 2:12 AM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with
e: [ADSM-L] spectrum protect 8.1.11.100 strange behaviour with dedup
pool
Hello,
that feature is handled in eFix 8.1.11.101, contact IBM to get access to it.
It also affects 8.1.10.200 and is fixed in eFix 8.1.10.204.
--
Michael Prix
On 4/23/21 8:52 AM, Tsm Tsm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on
Hello,
that feature is handled in eFix 8.1.11.101, contact IBM to get access to it.
It also affects 8.1.10.200 and is fixed in eFix 8.1.10.204.
--
Michael Prix
On 4/23/21 8:52 AM, Tsm Tsm wrote:
Hello,
on my test servers if you move or defragment (automatic) containers the
spectrum protect ap
Hello,
on my test servers if you move or defragment (automatic) containers the
spectrum protect application crashes, DB2 service still alive.
ANR0984I Process 2 for Move Container (Automatic) started in the BACKGROUND
at 02:02:07.
ANR0984I Process 3 for Move Container (Automatic) started in the
...@exist.se
http://www.existgruppen.se
Posthusgatan 1 761 30 NORRTÄLJE
-"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" skrev: -
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Från: Peter Dümpert
Sänt av: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
Datum: 10/05/2011 16:05
Ärende: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange behaviour...please Help
Rober
Robert,
instead of trying
q vol 01L2 f=d
try the following:
q vol 01 f=d
i.e. WITHOUT the "L2", i.e,. the 6 char Volser.
I assume the "L2" seems to be the appended LTO-type
accordingly to Richard Sims' ADSM.Quickfacts with resp. to
LTO barcode format
Being retir
Cell: +46-70-325 1577
E-mail: christian.svens...@cristie.se
Supported Platform for CPU2TSM::
http://www.cristie.se/cpu2tsm-supported-platforms
Från: Robert Ouzen [rou...@univ.haifa.ac.il]
Skickat: den 4 oktober 2011 19:48
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Strange b
Hi Robert,
TSM can and will mark a volume as private when a write error is encountered on
a scratch volume to prevent reuse. It's worth investigating if that could have
been the case. You may find recent cases in the actlog.
If you had a defective drive that (possibly) cause this, you could upd
Hi all
I run q libv I2000lib on my library here some of the output:
tsm: ADSM>q libv i2000lib
Library Name Volume Name Status Owner Last Use
HomeDevice
Element Typ
.edu] On Behalf Of
> Remco Post
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:02 PM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange Behaviour: backup STG pool >
>
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your
> server? O
: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Remco Post
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:02 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange Behaviour: backup STG
Hi Rajesh,
could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your
server? Or that
Hi Rajesh,
could it be that you only have data for a small amount of nodes in your server?
Or that there is one exceptionally large node? IIRC bacup stg for DISK works by
node, so if one process is working on the data of the last node, the other
process will finish if there is no data of other
Hi,
When I trigger "backup stg
maxproc=2" command I see two processes getting submitted to backup the
primary storage pool (Disk dev class) to my tape copy pool.
After a while one of the processes gets completed normally while the
other keeps running for a while till it fully create
the environment before printing this Email
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Christian Svensson
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:35 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] SV: Strange behaviour of TSM
Hi Grigori,
Look for
Hi Grigori,
Look for read errors on your tape pools.
/Christian
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Grigori Solonovitch [mailto:grigori.solonovi...@ahliunited.com]
Skickat: den 26 oktober 2010 10:49
Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ämne: Strange behaviour of TSM
TSM Server 5.5.4.1 under AIX 5.3
TSM Server 5.5.4.1 under AIX 5.3-12-01.
TSM Client 6.2.1.1 under AIX 5.3-12-01
TDP for Oracle 5.5.2.0 - Oracle 10.2.0.4
I am trying to duplicate database from production to test with point in time
recovery.
It restores level 0 backups (13/10/10) and incremental backups from 14/10/10
til
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Del
Hoobler
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:49 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange behaviour
When running Data Protection for Exchange with Exchange Server 2010, it
om: Robert Ouzen
>> To: ADSM-L@vm.marist.edu
>> Date: 10/14/2010 06:09 AM
>> Subject: Strange behaviour
>> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>>
>> Hi to all
>>
>> I implant few month ago a TDP of Exchange 2010 successfully via
>> l
Hi to all
I implant few month ago a TDP of Exchange 2010 successfully via lanfree too
(to my Data Domain VTL storage)… Now I am adding a DRM backup for outside
purpose.
The entire configuration was done successfully:
· Grant proxynode
· Define path (for lanFree backup to LTO
Frank
Verzonden: vr 22-9-2006 23:12
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Have you tried opening a dsmc prompt and retyping the command "q tsa"?
That should recreate the encrypted file with the necessary
username/password. Is it possible the username/
ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Troy
Frank
Verzonden: vrijdag 22 september 2006 15:50
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
>>>
22 september 2006 15:50
Aan: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [ADSM-L] Netware strange behaviour
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/22/2006 5:30 AM >>>
Hi All,
I've got a strange p
Hi Richard,
Does your dsm.opt file have this line in it?
passwordaccessgenerate
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/22/2006 5:30 AM >>>
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem on the following environment:
TSM Server 5.3.3.3
TSM Client 5.3.4.6 on Nertware OES 6.5 SP5
Every time I issu
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem on the following environment:
TSM Server 5.3.3.3
TSM Client 5.3.4.6 on Nertware OES 6.5 SP5
Every time I issue an incremental backup (scheduled or from the CLI) TSM
keeps asking me for a Netware user/password.
I specified NWPWFILE and NWUSER in the D
hello,
i've seen strange behaviour with acronis true image server on windows 2003
tsm server.
environment:
tsm server 5.2.4/5.3.3, plasmon g24 udo library (tsmscsi controlled), 3582
lto2 library (ibm driver controlled)
tsm client 5.2.x/5.3.4, no open file or image support installed
Hi All,
On one of our Small Business Server (W2K3 SP1) we have some strange
behaviour. After (re)starting the services (Client Acceptor and TDP
Exchange) all backups run fine for 2-3 days and then the services get
stuck and have to be restarted.
On another SBS we do not have those problems
On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Richard van Denzel wrote:
The technote comes very close, but on this machine backups all went
ok,
but when I look in the dsmsched.log the service hangs between
communication with the server when the next schedule is due (we let
them
poll every hour). I will give the
Subject: Re: Client 5.3.0.8 strange behaviour
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Curtis Stewart wrote:
> Are you using dsmcad or dsmc to control the scheduling. I've seen
> lots of
> problems with hung schedulers on Windows, at many code levels, when
> using
> dsmc sc
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Curtis Stewart wrote:
Are you using dsmcad or dsmc to control the scheduling. I've seen
lots of
problems with hung schedulers on Windows, at many code levels, when
using
dsmc sched. Moving to "managedservice schedule" seems to solve it
for me
about 99% of the time.
Denzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
06/09/2005 07:46 AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To
ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Client 5.3.0.8 strange behaviour
Hi All,
Has anyone seen this behaviour and perhaps knows a cure?
Environ
Hi All,
Has anyone seen this behaviour and perhaps knows a cure?
Environment:
Windows 2003 Small Business Server
TSM Client 5.3.0.8
>From time to time the scheduler process on W2K3 "hangs" and I manually
have to give the service a restart.
Other Windows 2003 Servers (not Small Business Servers)
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bos, Karel
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:46 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
-snip-
"
Especially if this happens quit frequently.
"
Inaccurate
: Re: Very very strange behaviour
Robert,
As Richard indicated, it is difficult to tell what the real problem is without
additional information. It may be something unrelated to what Richard and I
mentioned in our earlier responses.
> > >I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm clien
nothing thru the gui (dsm.exe) again with no option
> at all !!
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Raibeck
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 5:23 PM
> To: ADSM-L@
ion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Richard Sims
> Sent: zondag 6 februari 2005 17:09
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
>
> >I didn'
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
>I didn't mention P.I.T or Inactive because I run a regular restore
>(active display) What is strange is a see everything running thru the
>commend line
>(dsmc.exe) and nothing thru the gui (dsm.exe) again with no option at
>all !!!
>I didn't mention P.I.T or Inactive because I run a regular restore
>(active display)
>What is strange is a see everything running thru the commend line
>(dsmc.exe) and nothing thru the gui (dsm.exe) again with no option at
>all !!
As the Web page which Andy URLed talks of, the GUI operates in
ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
Raibeck
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 5:23 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Very very strange behaviour
Just to add to Richard's comments:
The issue that Richard raises is not limited to point-in-time restor
Just to add to Richard's comments:
The issue that Richard raises is not limited to point-in-time restores. It
can happen with any restore operation where a directory or its parent has
been expired from the server. I've discussed this in the past
(http://www.mail-archive.com/adsm-l@vm.marist.edu/ms
>I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm client version 5.2.3.4 , when I
>tried to restore thru the gui (dsm.exe) a directory (WWW) nothing is
>display either this directory or files.
>I tried the same with the command line (dsmc.exe) and I got the this
>directory and files too !
Again: When
Hi to all
I have a Client on Windows XP with Tsm client version 5.2.3.4 , when I tried to
restore thru the gui (dsm.exe) a directory (WWW) nothing is display either
this directory or files.
I tried the same with the command line (dsmc.exe) and I got the this directory
and files too !
Any
miran (IDS ECCS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour solaris 9 with domain option
Steve,
Use the following statement instead of what you are using.
Domain all-local -/oradata1 -/oradata2
Regards, Sa
PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange behaviour solaris 9 with domain option
Hi Fellow TSM'ers
Problem as follows:
Server 5.2.2.0
Client 5.2.0.0 also tested 5.2.2.0
Solaris 5.9
If I use the domain statement in the dsm.sys file to exclude any one of
the file systems, it excludes all the file sy
Hi Fellow TSM'ers
Problem as follows:
Server 5.2.2.0
Client 5.2.0.0 also tested 5.2.2.0
Solaris 5.9
If I use the domain statement in the dsm.sys file to exclude any one of the file
systems, it excludes all the file systems for example.
I have the following FS's on the client server
/
/v
Hello TSMer,
our 4 lto1 drives in 3584 have a strange behavior:
anytime one of the four drives is doing
mounting, dismounting or searching
all other three drives are waiting and do nothing at all !!
environment:
tsm 5.1.1.6 on w2k
tsm device driver 5.1.1.6
ultrium driver 5.0.4.7
qlogic adapt
On donderdag, september 5, 2002, at 11:49 , Mario Strehlow wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I use TSM 5.1 on AIX4.3.3 with a 3494 with four 3590E drives.
> There's a strange behaviour when using the label libvol command.
> The command is used like this:
>
> label libvol 3494lib
Hello,
I use TSM 5.1 on AIX4.3.3 with a 3494 with four 3590E drives.
There's a strange behaviour when using the label libvol command.
The command is used like this:
label libvol 3494lib search=yes checkin=scratch devt=3590
volrange=031000,031001
The command returns successfully, but no
Hi to all
I made a selective backup of one of my Unix client(nodename DRM_STUDY)
directly to tape (it's the managment class by default).
The backup took a very long time and I saw that the backup wrote files too
on disk. I made a list contents of what is written on disk (here is the
output).
Li
y, February 13, 2002 4:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
>
>
> You mention 20 MB/sec and that the SAP database is on an SSA array. Well
> some SSA array's have a maximum throughput of 20 MB/sec. This depends on
the
> adapter, and how you
3584 LTO with 8 LVD drives
TSM server 4.2.1.8
TSM client 4.2.1.15
TDP for R/3 3.2.0.6
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: James Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
Yo
You mention 20 MB/sec and that the SAP database is on an SSA array. Well
some SSA array's have a maximum throughput of 20 MB/sec. This depends on the
adapter, and how you have the SSA array configured.
It would be nice to get the machines hardware configuration more completely.
Also have you be
ce lab now.
Thanks for sharing,
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: Kauffman, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
Richard --
We run our TSM server on a system that serves as our SAP fallover box
e. You've really got twice the I/O running.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
> -Original Message-
> From: Denzel, Richard van [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
>
>
> James,
&g
ll in the labs there somewhere.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: James Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
What you really need to find out is how fast are you sending data to the LTO
tape drives
What you really need to find out is how fast are you sending data to the LTO
tape drives. The tape drives can only go as fast as the data stream you
send to them. Or as fast as the destination can accept on a restore. If
you are only sending 2.5 MB/sec to the tape drives, then don't complain wh
Nope,
The 3584 is direct SCSI attached.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Swinhoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
If you are using a SAN DATa Gateway to bridge the gap between your FC
:
Sent by: Subject: Re: LTO strange behaviour
"ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RIST.EDU>
07/02/02
16:03
Where is the data coming from? During the testing I did on LTO vs. SDLT I
observed similar behavior. I concluded that the RAID5 set containing my
disk storage pools was the bottleneck.
The paper is available at
http://www.storsol.com/pub/LTOvsSDLT.pdf?timeout=200
Kelly J. Lipp
Storage Solutio
this
> DOMAIN,
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jerry Caupain [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:12 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Strange behaviour
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> &g
ROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/26/2001 09:18
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour
Hey Andy,
The example that you've outlined
by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/26/2001 06:52
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour
But why EVERY directory of EVERY system, even the ones t
r Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Strange behaviour
But why EVERY directory of EVERY system, even the ones that have nothing
to do with this managementclass?
Why don't all other systems just use the default managementclass?
Do I really need to
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Strange behaviour
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two
> management classes. One is called STANDARD and the other is called
> LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last one only for my log server
istopher S. Young
Senior System Engineer
Gresham Enterprise Storage
www.greshamstorage.com
Office: 303.413.1799 x 205
Mobile: 303.717.2745
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Caupain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Strange
ase respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Strange behaviour
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two
management classes. One is called STANDARD and the other is
r"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Strange behaviour
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two
management classes. One is called STANDARD and the other is called
LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last one only for my l
hi,
it will be used for directories if the retonly value is the highest in this
DOMAIN,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Caupain [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Strange behaviour
>
Hello everyone,
I have noticed something strange. In my policy domain I have two management classes.
One is called STANDARD and the other is called LOG_POLICY-MC. I want to use the last
one only for my log server so I included the following line in my include/exclude
file:
INclude /lo
76 matches
Mail list logo
