Re: Question

Hi, yes, the folks at barcalys are getting particularly annoying, maybe Martha could fix the list subscription, since they are themselves not very forthcoming in updating their subscription. I've sent a filter to both delete the messages from barcalys and send the webteam a note asking th

[no subject]

HI-MB.w i le! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>A<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: AW: [ADSM-L] Question about group collocation Subject: AW: [ADSM-L] Question about g

Re:

Thank you :-) Was that in the Admin Guide? And if so, why couldn't I find it ? :-0) Many thanks again Farren -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Otto Chvosta Sent: 25 November 2008 11:04 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L]

Question about group collocation

Hi all I currently have a tapepool collocated by node. I have created my first collocation group and added three client nodes to it. So, if I now update the tapepool to collocate by 'group', am I right in thinking it will still collocate all nodes NOT in the collocation group by node? Thanks

Re: TSM Library manager v Gresham

On 25 nov 2008, at 02:46, Mark Stapleton wrote: From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Paschal I don't know what Mark meant about inability to use the library due to resyncing TSM to Gresham. I don't recall ever syncing TSM with EDT, it wasn't necessary sin

Re:

Farren, Haa, I was about to send you the same content...! That was an excerpt from "HELP DEFINE STGPOOL"... (refer to COLLocate option of DEFINE STGPOOL -- primary sequential access section). Regards, Rama -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beha

Re: Audit part of a library?

>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:01:19 -0600, "Howard Coles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Or, another way would be to checkout every tape that has been > duplicated (with checklabel=no), and then check them back in as > private with checklabel=yes. The unlabeled, or duplicates will > error out and will

[no subject]

HI-MB.w i le! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>A<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [ADSM-L] Question about group collocation Subject: RE: [ADSM-L] Question about g

Re: "Waiting for access to input volume"

Kelly, The multi-access read only applies to random access volumes, ie. Disk. Shawn, This is a flaw of TSM. If a process is using/holding a volume another process will not be able to use it until it completes. I have ran into this issue when running an export that was using a volume and then a m

Re: "Waiting for access to input volume"

I don't think that's true. The purpose of the new code was to eliminate the problem with sequential volumes. Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B Elkton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719-266-8777 www.storserver.com -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROT

TSM systemstate backups or NTBACKUP

Is anyone using the Windows NTBACKUP to backup Windows servers SYSTEMSTATE instead of relying on using TSM to backup the system state. I am always running into issues with some servers not able to get a successfull SYSTEMSTATE backup via TSM Latest clients have been Windows 2003 servers at 5.5.0

Re: TSM systemstate backups or NTBACKUP

We use it on hundreds of servers with no problems. We have seen problems caused by the infamous DRM registry key and VSS but most problems have been fixed with newer clients and Windoz patches. On our AD servers, we are using NTBACKUP because M$ says that is the *ONLY* acceptible/sanctioned backu

Re: "Waiting for access to input volume"

On Nov 25, 2008, at 19:45 , Kelly Lipp wrote: I don't think that's true. The purpose of the new code was to eliminate the problem with sequential volumes. I have to side with Kelly on this, recent TSM levels can have concurrent RO access to FILE type volumes (no tape though, for obvious reaso

Re: "Waiting for access to input volume"

Hi Remco, I see your point...I was really only trying to point out that concurrent reads could not be performed on VTL volumes as they were sequential access. I recall this information from a "TSM 5.5 Features" conference call with IBM. Regards, Michael Petrullo TSM Support Legg Mason Technology

Re: "Waiting for access to input volume"

On Nov 25, 2008, at 21:14 , Petrullo, Michael G. wrote: Hi Remco, I see your point...I was really only trying to point out that concurrent reads could not be performed on VTL volumes as they were sequential access. I recall this information from a "TSM 5.5 Features" conference call with IBM.

Re: TSM systemstate backups or NTBACKUP

How are you automating the NTbackup on your AD servers The servers causing me issues are in fact AD servers. Tim -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:50 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subj

Re: TSM system state backups or NTBACKUP

Hi, We gave configured NTBACKUP with it's wizard to perform daily backups to local disks (d:\ntbackup). TSM backup this directory during its daily backup routine. So, we use both TSM system state backup and NTBACKUP. Gidi -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL