Really, ignore! :)
(sorry for spamming)
--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Remco Post, PLCS
Hi,
I have an odd error relating to TSM requests. I had to cancel a tape checkin
the otherday and ever since i have an orphaned request that is not troublesome,
but annoying. How do i clear it away barring a restart of the server?
12:58:02 TSM : q req
ANR8345E QUERY REQUEST: No match found
The SHow REQuest output seems to say that the request number is 001,
so do Query REQuest 001 and see if that returns results, whereafter
you could try CANcel REQuest 001 and see if that works.
Also do Query PRocess F=D and Query SEssion F=D to see if any are
lingering on a mount request. The Che
Hi,
currently we have TSM 5.3.4.2 running on AIX 5.3 (and an IBM 3494 tape
library with eight 3592 drives, Atape 10.7.3.0) and are planning to
upgrade to 5.5.1.0 soon. I've already tested this upgrade on my test
machine, and it worked fine. This absence of any problem made me even a
bit suspiciou
For our last upgrade to 5.4 we ran expiration on the "test" upgrade and a few
backups and restores without giving access to the real data. Once upgraded we
ran a backup, restore with fresh data and a restore with "upgraded" data.
Our last upgrade we ran into a problem during reclaim (fixed with
Try running Ops reporting on your test server ;)
It fails immediately when you run any report, due to a spelling mistake in the
language query !
Other than that we have been running it for two days without any problem on
Windows.
Phil
From: Björn Rackoll [
I have LTO4 tapes with LTO3 barcodes on each tape. When the tapes are
checked in as scratch TSM sees the size of 1.5gb. When used they go to full
status with around 800gb on each tape. Compression is turned on. I believe
this is due to the LTO3 barcodes, since LTO3 compressed tapes are 800gb. I
nee
LTO4 are 800GB Native capacity. If you are writing compressed data on
them, that is all you are going to get.
The "compressed" capacity number that is offered is only marketing. That
is just the number you might get if your data compresses at a 2:1 ratio.
Some people's data get better or worse t
TSM will write data until it hits the physical end of tape.
When you check a tape in, the "estimated capacity" is set by the device
class definition; you can change that to anything you want, reasonable or
not, with UPDATE DEVCLASS.
Regardless, TSM will use the full capacity of the LTO4 cartridge.
First make sure your device class has FORMAT specified as DRIVE. If the
drive is enabled for compression (check via your library's web GUI),
then you can expect anywhere from 800GB to 1.6TB of utilization. With
mixed data types I typically see ~1.2TB.
One other option to set is the ESTCAPACITY=160
Mm, I'm getting the list traffic again, how nice. :)
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:19:37 -0500, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Do not use a local filesystem. The FILE volumes used for DB backup
> should reside on an NFS-mounted filesystem, which can also be
> mounted by some other system.
Same here with the spelling mistake. I installed TSM Console 5.5.0.3 and
it got rid of the errors from the bad SQL query.
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/storage/t...ON-Windows.exe
***
Gregory Lynch
Lead Programmer Analyst
IT Infrastructure
On Jul 17, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Allen S. Rout wrote:
Having the backups "elsewhere" is good, but having them at all is
critical on a minute-by-minute basis for the running of your server.
For what it's worth, we rsync our DB backups to a computer offsite,
using ssh preshared keys.
--Jim
Just wanted to get feedback on what others are doing in terms of their TSM
environments where library sharing, IBM libraries, and drives are
involved. We have the following setup in one of our major datacenters:
14 (with growth projected up to 19 or 20) TSM instances running on p570's
with AIX 5.
We just recently activated "access based enumeration" on a 2K3 server and
now all fileshares are showing up as individual filesystems. So now this
server has 300+ filesystems where earlier it only had
6-drives/filesystems.
How do we stop this phenomenon and stop it from backing these up as
separat
On Jul 17, 2008, at 20:33 , Sean English wrote:
Just wanted to get feedback on what others are doing in terms of
their TSM
environments where library sharing, IBM libraries, and drives are
involved. We have the following setup in one of our major
datacenters:
14 (with growth projected up to 19
VTL has been looked, but never decided upon. And believe it or not, we
have moved storage agents to 10 G networks. The rest of theses storage
agents are huge servers that are backing up at least 800 GB (and in some
instances 5 to 10 TBs). We have some storage agents that do full backups
on the w
On Jul 17, 2008, at 20:56 , Sean English wrote:
VTL has been looked, but never decided upon. And believe it or not,
we
have moved storage agents to 10 G networks. The rest of theses
storage
agents are huge servers that are backing up at least 800 GB (and in
some
instances 5 to 10 TBs). We hav
Hi,
I have been using 5.5.0.0 (I know base level not good for production) and have
just gone to 5.5.1 . No problems to date. In fact it seems more stable and
faster at daily tasks. The upgrade process is amazingly fast and efficient.
Simple test were backup and restore of each client, TDP, Exch
19 matches
Mail list logo
