OK.... something doesn't look right here.
Do you use the QUIET option? If so, can you turn it off then re-run the
problem command? In general, whenever you are trying to diagnose client
problems, turn off QUIET so we can see *all* output. Otherwise there is a
lot of other contextual info I can't see.
Also try running:
dsmc query systeminfo
Attach the resulting dsminfo.txt in your response. Also, if the output
from dsmc with QUIET disable is too large, attach it as a file too.
Is user/lpp/sysback/images a directory or a file?
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Joe Pendergast <JPendergast AT WATSONPHARM DOT COM>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
07/08/2004 13:37
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Upgrade to TSM client 5.2.3.0 Benefit or Nuisance.
Andrew,
Here is a smaller system (my nim server) and the output for a simple "dsmc
i" incremental backup. Note the return code at the end is a "4".
Again the added warning message and return code appeared after the upgrade
to the client.
[root@uscasrv0037 169]: /
-> dsmc i
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager
Command Line Backup/Archive Client Interface - Version 5, Release 2, Level
3.0
(c) Copyright by IBM Corporation and other(s) 1990, 2004. All Rights
Reserved.
Node Name: USCASRV0037
Session established with server TSM: AIX-RS/6000
Server Version 5, Release 2, Level 3.0
Server date/time: 07/08/04 13:30:43 Last access: 07/08/04 00:28:40
ANS1115W File '/usr/lpp/sysback/images' excluded by Include/Exclude list
Total number of objects inspected: 75,048
Total number of objects backed up: 100
Total number of objects updated: 0
Total number of objects rebound: 0
Total number of objects deleted: 0
Total number of objects expired: 3
Total number of objects failed: 0
Total number of bytes transferred: 12.43 MB
Data transfer time: 1.31 sec
Network data transfer rate: 9,666.19 KB/sec
Aggregate data transfer rate: 134.02 KB/sec
Objects compressed by: 0%
Elapsed processing time: 00:01:35
[root@uscasrv0037 170]: /
-> echo $?
4
PS - pmr #14831.227
Andrew Raibeck
<storman AT US DOT IBM.C To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST
DOT EDU
OM> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Upgrade to
TSM client 5.2.3.0 Benefit or Nuisance.
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[email protected]
.EDU>
07/08/2004 11:52
AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
What kind of operation are you running? SELECTIVE or ARCHIVE? Are you
using the QUIET option? Incremental backup should not generate these
messages.
The reason I ask: We recently fixed a bug (IC39328) where SELECTIVE or
ARCHIVE operations don't issue these messages when QUIET is in use, though
they are displayed when QUIET is not used. The fixed behavior is
consistent in that messages of greater than informational severity should
not be suppressed regardless of the QUIET or VERBOSE setting. And
certainly the return code should not be affected by QUIET or VERBOSE.
I understand the issue, and this has been discussed at length in
development. Way back when the incremental, selective, and archive
operations were defined, it was decided that use of SELECTIVE and ARCHIVE
would imply *all* files in the specification, i.e. if you say "SELECTIVE
<this_file_spec>", you want *all* the files. Hence the warning message
(and, as of 5.1, the RC 4) to indicate that some files were skipped via
EXCLUDE statements.
The issue with ARCHIVE is a little bit different. Because ARCHIVE is
intended for long-term storage, we wouldn't want to silently skip excluded
files just in case there was an error in the exclude statement. While
*you* may know what you are excluding, I can easily imagine someone who
inadvertently excluded something they didn't intend to exclude, then 2
years later when they try to retrieve it, it isn't there. And then we'd
get blamed for not providing adequate warning during the archive that the
file was skipped.
I understand that this does not give you a solution, but I'm just trying
to explain how we got here and some rationale for the choices. I recommend
you open a requirement if you would like to see the behavior changed.
It should be noted that RC 4 is not defined as a "failed" status for
backup, selective, or archive operations; rather, it is "successful" with
some files skipped. Though I understand that there is a distinction
between files you *meant* to skip versus those that were skipped for
reasons other than being excluded.
If I have misunderstood anything about the technical details surround this
(i.e. if you are seeing this during incremental processing) then please
provide more info, such as the *exact* syntax you are using and the output
you are receiving. If you can reduce this to a single file or a small set
of files, that will be helpful.
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Joe Pendergast <JPendergast AT WATSONPHARM DOT COM>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
07/08/2004 09:18
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc
Subject
Upgrade to TSM client 5.2.3.0 Benefit or Nuisance.
I have just upgraded my TSM clients and server to 5.2.3.0 on the AIX
5.2.0.0 systems, and come across an interesting new message.
ANS1115W File '/oracle/stage' excluded by Include/Exclude list
This new output message is repeated for each directory that I have
excluded
in the inclexcl listing. They appear on screen during an interactive
backup (dsmc i) and are also placed in the schedule log (dsmsched.log) on
scheduled backups.
Benefit = The administrator can analyze the results of the inclexcl file
changes by executing a backup.
Detriment = Programs scanning for "W"arning messages will show this purely
"I"nformative message.
Problem observed: An interactive backup (executed in a ksh script) now
exits with a return code of "4" indicating files have been skipped. Yes,
I
agree, the files have been skipped, but they were skipped by design.
Previously my special (ksh) backup processes completed normally (return
code 0), and now they complete with an error (return code 4).
TSM support response: The message and return code are working as
designed.
If any of the technical people in this list agree that the files skipped
because of the inclexcl list should not trigger a return code 4, please
contact TSM support and tell them.
I appreciate any workaround ideas to keep my "ksh" backups from failing
with return code 4 as a result of the inclexcl statements. I would still
like to see the return code 4 if there were truly "failed" files.
|
