Hi Richard,

I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have done long
ago).  It does indeed suggest that surrogate directories are created and the
real directories are restored as they are hit.

Has anyone really observed this to be genuinely true?  I have in the past
observed the double-tape-mount theory, and though I understand it is
supposedly fixed, I haven't heard anyone say "I have seen it, I know it
works, you no longer need to keep a dirmc diskpool".

Of course, if it is indeed working as designed now, it doesn't resolve the
other dirmc issues currently being discussed in this thread.

Is there anyone on the list who has in recent history decided to ditch using
a dirmc diskpool altogether and done so with success on the restore side?

regards,

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sims" <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.

Paul -

This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing. We've
discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on it in ADSM
QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to further pursuit
in IBM doc.

  Richard Sims    http://people.bu.edu/rbs

On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Paul Fielding wrote:

I'd be interested in more discussion on this point.   My original
understanding was actually a bit different that that.  The impression
I had
was that originally directory tree structures were restored before any
files
happened, period. Following that, files would be restored.  Net result
-
tapes might get mounted twice.

Is my understanding incorrect? (could well be).  If this behavior has
indeed
been fixed so that directories are restored as they are hit on the tape
(with a pre-created non-ACLed directory being created first) then it
would
indeed make sense that a DIRMC pool is no longer needed.

Is there any documentation on this somewhere I can reference?