ADSM-L

Re: Client install id

2005-09-09 18:21:30
Subject: Re: Client install id
From: David W Litten <dlitten AT DUKE-ENERGY DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:20:52 -0400
APAR IC41440. Another alternative recommended by tivoli support was to
backlevel the client to version 5.2.4.0



             Andrew Raibeck
             <storman AT US DOT IBM.C
             OM>                                                        To
             Sent by: "ADSM:           ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
             Dist Stor                                                  cc
             Manager"
             <[email protected]                                     Subject
             .edu>                     Re: [ADSM-L] Client install id


             09/09/2005 06:03
             PM


             Please respond to
             "ADSM: Dist Stor
                 Manager"
             <[email protected]
                   .edu>






David, do you happen to know to which APAR you are referring, or do you
have a PMR on this?

The closest match I know of is IC46809, but that describes the opposite
problem you mention: that when you DO use dynamic serialization, the
system state or system object backups are no good. But DYNAMIC and
SHRDYNAMIC should only be used on an exception basis, when you know that
the application that uses the files can tolerate a restored file that came
from a fuzzy backup.

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.

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2005-09-09
13:48:12:

> Larry,
>
> There are problems with Domain Controllers running 5.3 client, that are
> supposed to be addressed by the 5.3.1 release, where system objects
don't
> get backed up unless the copy group  they are using is set to Dynamic
> serialization.
>
> As long as the ID you are using has local admin rights on the client
> machines you should not run into any problems with the install. Local
admin
> is required in order to give you update rights to the registry. Any of
the
> ID's you've mentioned will work as long as they are in the local
> administrators group on the  client machines.
>
> I have seen problems with other software installs if the built-in, local
> Administrator ID is not used. But, I have not seen any issues when
> installing TSM with any id within the local Administrators group.
>
> david
>
>
>
>
>              Larry Peifer
>              <[email protected]
>              CE.COM> To
>              Sent by: "ADSM:           ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
>              Dist Stor cc
>              Manager"
>              <[email protected] Subject
>              .edu>                     [ADSM-L] Client install id
>
>
>              09/09/2005 04:35
>              PM
>
>
>              Please respond to
>              "ADSM: Dist Stor
>                  Manager"
>              <[email protected]
>                    .edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We're installing 90 TSM 5.3 clients on a mix of W2K and W2K3 servers.
> These are all new - 1st time installs.  Several are domain controllers
and
> several are clustered for failover.    Looks to me like we have several
> choices for ID's to use for installs: Local Administrator ID, Domain
> Administrator ID, and members of the Administrator group.  We run
Journal,
> Schedule, and Web services.  All passwords for all IDs mentioned above
get
> changed every 90 days per Corporate IT Security mandate.  What pros /
cons
> are there for using a particular ID to install with?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>