Hi Skylar,
Thanks for you answer, very useful but I have got a silly question:
Using the proxy relationship do we know if TSM is going to spread the work
accross all the nodes of the cluster of just only above the nodes that have
enable the scheduler ¿?
Thanks for your help,
Regards,
Ibán Be
Hi Allen,
Thanks for your reply !!
Using virtual mount points do we know if TSM takes care of the Journalling of
the files that he is going to do backup ¿?
If it takes care, the backup window will be more small because it knows which
files have changed...¿? less processing time...
What do you t
Bernaldo de Quiros, Iban 1 wrote:
> Hi Skylar,
>
> Thanks for you answer, very useful but I have got a silly question:
>
> Using the proxy relationship do we know if TSM is going to spread the work
> accross all the nodes of the cluster of just only above the nodes that have
> enable the schedule
My mistake, I meant dsmserv.dsk.
In the end I did it by editing the file and restoring the database.
Worked fine and I was (or could have been) done in about 3.5 hours.
Creating and deleting dbvs would have taken just around a week (with
a trailing wind), which was time I didn't have.
Thanks ev
Well,
I've beed trying my damnedest to get some actual performace out of my
database here and have come to the conclusion that IBM was not lying
to me and that the database is, in fact, not all it might be. It also
appears, though I stand to be corrected, that the buffer pool cache
hit rate is a
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:13:54 -0400, Lawrence Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> the problem you have with them not deleteing automaticly may be in
> the client (node) def. You have to make sure Backup Delete Allowed?:
> Yes is set. do a q node x f=d and verify. If it is not set,
> even if t
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:00:06 -0700, Jason Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've beed trying my damnedest to get some actual performace out of my
> database here and have come to the conclusion that IBM was not lying
> to me and that the database is, in fact, not all it might be.
Oh, they're t
On Oct 21, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Allen S. Rout wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:00:06 -0700, Jason Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I have N clients all starting at the same time. They all are going
to request ~100MB of data (or at least that is the number being
reported by q session as bytes sent whe
