ADSM-L

Re: Node just sitting In-Progress

2004-07-06 10:56:56
Subject: Re: Node just sitting In-Progress
From: Kathleen Hallahan <Kathleen_Hallahan AT FREDDIEMAC DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:56:34 -0400
Ditto here.  We even opened a DCR a couple of years back to get this
changed to an exception status so at least a "q ev  * * ex=yes" would show
them, but it was turned down.  What we were told, basically, was that TSM
is 'client-based' and in order to know whether a backup completed
successfully we had to check the dsmsched.log on each client.

In an environment with hundreds of clients, that's a bit prohibitive.

I know I came away from that entire process extremely frustrated, and with
the impression that a 'bigger fish' than our organization wanted it the way
that it is now.  I don't recall exactly what it was that gave me that
impression, though.

Hopefully in future incarnations IBM will make the server smart enough to
know that if a client stops talking to it out of the blue, there's
something wrong.

Kathleen






                      "Ted Byrne"
                      <ted.byrne@ADELPH        To:       ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST 
DOT EDU
                      IA.NET>                  cc:
                      Sent by: "ADSM:          Subject:  Re: Node just sitting 
In-Progress
                      Dist Stor
                      Manager"
                      <[email protected]
                      .EDU>


                      07/02/2004 01:08
                      PM
                      Please respond to
                      "ADSM: Dist Stor
                      Manager"






At 12:11 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
>Timothy
>
>This is one of my pet hates about TSM.
>
>A scheduled backup which is actually in progress - ie actively
transferring
>data between client and server - shows a status of 'Started'.
>A scheduled backup which started but encountered an error, dropped the
>session or whatever shows a status of 'In Progress'.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks this is the wrong way round?

FWIW, This is a pet annoyance for me as well, and I'm a big fan of
TSM.  The "In progress" status originally showed up as "(?)" which was
probably more accurate than what it was changed to.  (I would mentally read
that as 'Huh?'.)

When we originally encountered the non-exceptional (?) status, which
certainly qualifies as an exception in my book, we chose translate that
into a status of "Incomplete" in the scripts we were using to report on
event status.  After it was changed to "In Progress", we changed our
scripts to translate the new description to "Incomplete" as well.  It
seemed to convey the actual state of affairs more accurately.

I seem to recall that when I read the original APAR that was opened about
the (?) status, there was a  strong argument that this should be classified
as an exception when using "q ev".  This is obviously not what they chose
to do.

Curiously, the APAR describing the status change to "In progress" (IC33373)
discusses long-running events, and uses "restartable" to describe them.  In
our experience, it almost always indicates a failure of the client (such as
the scheduler service/daemon freezing or dying).  I can't recall ever
seeing one of these events restarted.

-Ted

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>