Hi,
I made today from Internet Gui a "Always Backup" (equivalent of selective from online)
of a client novell.
When the backup finish I run an online query fi on the client in this stage I didn't
see the backup I just finish to run (successfuly)
If I run a query backup -su=yes filespace I saw
This is more a TSM internal logic question than anything else. I am seeing
times that a TSM server has more tapes mounted than would be necessary for
Administrative tasks like migration and backup of storage pools. When and
how does this happen?
The details Looking at system queries for this
SHARE an IBM user group is looking for people to speak at the summer 2001
conference in Minneapolis. We would like to have people speak about the
following topics:
Tivoli Storage Manager
Tivoli Disaster Recovery Manager
Tivoli Space Manager
Tivoli Sanergy
SAN Implementation
If you would like to
Hi John,
First let me comment on yr first question/observation: "I am seeing times that a
TSM server has more tapes mounted than would be necessary for Administrative
tasks like migration and backup of storage pools." answer> TSM (without
migration settings, client schedules, admin schedules,
Sergio,
the "real" restriction on an ARCHIVE command is that you can only specify
20 objects to be archived, either directories or files. This does not
appear in the v3.7 doco but was present in v3.1 where we first encountered
it.
Rik Foote
---
bbullock wrote:
> The problem that keeps me awake at night now is that we now have
> manufacturing machines wanting to use TSM for their backups. In the past
> they have used small DLT libraries locally attached to the host, but that's
> labor intensive and they want to take advantage of o
> Othonas wrote:
>2) Activate your migration processes and empty yr disk pools. From 2:00-3:00 am
> to 4:00-5:00 am.
> 3) Make copies (backup) of your tape storage pools (onsite/offsite). From
> 4:00-06:00 am to 07:00-10:00 am.
On the scheduling topic - is there a way to run the copy pr
Andy Raibeck:
> Either way, I'm pretty sure that DISTINCT is supposed to
> account for distinct rows in their entirety, and not just certain columns.
> I'll have to look into this.
That's what I thought too. My guess would be something to do with the SQL
interface not being direct to the databas
