Hi Steve!
That's what I like to test today. I'm hoping that TSM handles this situation
better when using predefined scratch file volumes.
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Schaub [mailto:Steve.Schaub AT HAWORTH DOT COM]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 20:05
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Enabling caching to shorten housekeeping
Eric,
Oh, THAT bug. Yes, it bit us once as well when our hp-ux system lost
its san connection to the file class luns and expiration went on its
merry way, deleting scores of volumes from the tsm db, even though it
could not actually touch the underlying filesystem. That was a fun
weekend of scripting up some very challenging 'sync' routines to expose
and delete the os 'ghost' files. Definitely deserves an apar...
I am moving us in the direction of pre-defined (zero scratch) rather
than dynamic volumes for these pools for that very reason.
Thanks,
-steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [mailto:Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:43 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Enabling caching to shorten housekeeping
Hi Jurjen!
No, that's not what I'm seeing. I have seen that TSM does not handle
allocation failures properly. I removed file volumes and directories
after creation and started a new backup. This backup runs into a rc 2
(File or directory not found) which is correct, but the volumes are
never updated to read-only or, better yet, unavailable. Also, TSM
forever keeps on trying to create new files in the non existing path. I
have not tried pre-defined file volumes yet, hopefully TSM handles them
better, otherwise we maybe have to reconsider our design. That's
definitely not what I want :-(( Kindest regards, Eric van Loon KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines
-----Original Message-----
From: Jurjen Oskam [mailto:jurjen-tsm AT STUPENDOUS DOT ORG]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:21
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Enabling caching to shorten housekeeping
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:06:49AM +0100, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote:
> We only ran into a nasty bug when using the file device class, so I
> hope
IBM
> will turn my PMR in an APAR and fix it as soon as possible...
Let me guess: FILE volumes only store a tiny bit of data before
(incorrectly)
encountering end-of-volume? At least, that is the problem I'm
encountering.
--
Jurjen Oskam
"E-mail has just erupted like a weed, and instead of considering
what to say when they write, people now just let thoughts drool
out onto the screen." - R. Craig Hogan
**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
|
