Hello,

Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote:

Hi Guys!
I have been beta testing 5.3 for IBM and I too have tried convincing IBM
that they are definitely not on the right track with the Admin Center.
I haven't received a response from them on my comments, so I'm afraid they
will ignore our objections...
Especially resellers should be worried. You will never be able to convince
small customers that one has to invest in a Windows workstation with a high
performance processor and at least 1 Gb. (!!!!) of memory, just to run an
administrative interface!!
So my plea to IBM too: Please give us back the WebAdmin!!!!!

I totally agree. This is the TOTAL overkill !!!!!!!!!!!

Bye
 Rainer Tammer

Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard van Denzel [mailto:RvanDenzel AT SLTN DOT NL]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 13:10
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: ISC on WinXP or Unix


Adrie,

I totally agree with you. I've also test installed it (or at least I
tried) it on WXP, Linux (FC3) and AIX 5.2. The only installing which
succeeded was the AIX (it only took 3 hours to install the ISC and AC).
It is also very annoying to have a /tmp of 750MB+, just for the sake of
the installation.

Lets hope IBM brings back the Webinterface asap, because I did not see
advantages of the ISC yet.
When I test created a diskpool volume of 5GB on my Linux TSM 5.3 server it
failed at almost 5GB with no apperent reason. When I did it manually (long
live dsmadmc) it went just fine.

Richard.





Adrie van Tuyl <vantuyl AT XS4ALL DOT NL>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
07-01-2005 12:05
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"

       To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
       cc:
       Subject:        Re: ISC on WinXP or Unix


At 20:24 1/6/2005, you wrote:

On Thursday 06 January 2005 13:14, Warren, Matthew (Retail) wrote:

..I'm glad to hear. I use a suite of python scripts that ive put
together / migrated from other shells over the last 5 years or more. I
would be frustrated  if dsmadmc dissappeared...

Is this a possibility for future release?

I don't know and I hope not.  I think 99.9% of the TSM customers use

dsmadmc

in some sort of scripting language to automate/monitor TSM.  I don't

think

IBM can risk to loose 99.9% of it's TSM customers.

Stef

This seems they do not care.
Probably 90 % or more (maybe even 99.9%) of the customers did use the
Webinterface of the TSM server.
Many of the customers (>80%?) do not have an ISC.
So these customers are forced into setting up an ISC, preferably on other
hardware than on the TSM server because of the resource utilization of the
ISC. IMHO this does not make any sence at all.

I tried to set up an ISC in a test environment. I tried a PII 400 with 384
MB. On this machine TSM 5.2.3.5 works perfectly for testing purposes.
I did not manage to install the ISC with the TSM admin (after an 8 hours
of
trying), and for now I don't want to put any effort in it because I don't
have the equipment nor the time.

For the people who managed to get ISC working; is it worth it? Is the TSM
admin dramatically improved? Have all the wishes which we see come by in
this group come true?

I sincerely hope we get our webinterface back.

Adrie


**********************************************************************
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: 
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and 
privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the 
addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be 
disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this 
e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have 
received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), 
its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or 
incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for 
any delay in receipt.
**********************************************************************