Yes it still works that way when you don't specify a DIRMC.

Kyle

fred johanson <fred AT UCHICAGO DOT EDU> wrote:
Does anyone know if TSM still puts directories in the mgmtc with the
longest retention period? On one of my machines, that belongs to a special
group of machines with all sorts of special handling. I've used DIRMC to
ensure the directory of some desktop doesn't get treated in the same way.


At 01:25 PM 3/19/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul,
>Using a separate pool for directories is something that many have been
>doing for a long time and just kept doing even after IBM implemented the
>new directory restore method (restore order processing). If you look at a
>directory as a small file then you can see why keeping it in a separate
>pool so that you can keep that data on disk might help. This is one
>reason why we have not yet stopped using the DIRMC. With that being said
>more and more of my customers are implementing file device classes or
>VTL's which keep most of the primary data on disk. As a result I no
>longer see the need for separating out the directories to another disk
>location.
>
>About a year ago many of my larger customers would complain about how long
>the DIRMC disk pools would take to backup. In working with support we
>found that this was a WAD feature. I think the issue was (can't remember
>for sure) that each file in a disk pool is evaluated on every backup where
>sequential access pools are evaluated differently. As a result we started
>taking our DIRMC pools and giving them a small pool built with a file
>device class definition. We made sure the data migrated from disk to file
>device class each day and as a result the storage pool copy problem went away.
>
>Now the fact that we are using file device classes as described above is
>why I am concerned about the issue that was mentioned in this thread about
>the larger default block size.
>
>All of these issues together lead me to believe that DIRMC pools are no
>longer as necessary as they used to be.
>
>Kyle
>
>
>Paul Fielding
wrote:
>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"
>To:
>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?
> >
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Fred Johanson
ITSM Administrator
University of Chicago
773-702-8464

                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!