Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Missed\s+backups\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Missed\s+backups\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Kerry Campbell <kcampbell AT MEDSYNERGIES DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:58:43 -0600; I just received a report from the TSM report monitor that two of our LPARS "missed" the backup last night. Is there any way to tell why it missed the backup? Thanks, Kerry ** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE**; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-12/msg00345.html (9,196 bytes)
2. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: "Ochs, Duane" <Duane.Ochs AT QG DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:01:05 -0600; Yes. Check if the scheduler is running on that system and review the dsmsched.log on the system that missed the backup. I just received a report from the TSM report monitor that two of our LPARS "mis; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-12/msg00346.html (9,660 bytes)
3. FW: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Kerry Campbell <kcampbell AT MEDSYNERGIES DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:02:05 -0600; Also, I'm using an AIX LPAR for the server for TSM and the LPAR's that were "missed" are AIX. As a second question the report tells me that the "% of diskpool utilization is at 99.8%" should I be con; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-12/msg00347.html (9,613 bytes)
4. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:30:27 -0500; ...As a second question the report tells me that the "% of diskpool utilization is at 99.8%" should I be concerned about this? Do storage pool queries. It's only an issue if Migration isn't happenin; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-12/msg00350.html (9,006 bytes)
5. Missed backups (score: 1): Author: "Meadows, Andrew" <AMeadows AT BMI DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:18:46 -0600; I have a general question here. I have about 150 clients. Client info: Windows 2003 server Windows 2000 server Red Hat Linux 3 AS AIX 5.1 All running tsm client version 5 or later sending data to a t; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00031.html (9,666 bytes)
6. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Troy Frank <Troy.Frank AT UWMF.WISC DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:23:20 -0600; It's definitely not supposed to happen. I have it happen occassionally on a lesser scale than what you're describing, and it's almost always Windows clients. Some of them I tracked to oddities that o; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00033.html (10,838 bytes)
7. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:50:43 -0500; For Windows clients: I had a lot of problems with the service stopping using 5.1 TSM clients on Win2K. Sometimes it just died, all would die about once a month. I think at 5.1 there was a known memor; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00039.html (10,876 bytes)
8. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: John Monahan <JMonahan AT COMPURES DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:50:53 -0600; I've noticed a dramatic increase in reliability/stability in letting the client acceptor daemon (CAD) control the scheduler. In many cases you don't have to restart services every time you make a opt; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00050.html (11,292 bytes)
9. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:35:12 -0500; I've noticed a dramatic increase in reliability/stability in letting the client acceptor daemon (CAD) control the scheduler. In many cases you don't have to restart services every time you make a op; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00060.html (9,719 bytes)
10. Re: Missed backups (score: 1): Author: Andy Huebner <Andy.Huebner AT ALCONLABS DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:14:41 -0600; We have >1% miss rate on Win2k and higher running 5.2.2.10 agent or higher. We use the CAD to manage the scheduler. Many failures have been traced to the scheduler hanging on agents lower than 5.2.2.; /lists/html/ADSM-L/2006-01/msg00064.html (10,606 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]