ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Linux Client failing with ANS1999E error

2010-04-19 13:32:05
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Linux Client failing with ANS1999E error
From: Shawn Drew <shawn.drew AT AMERICAS.BNPPARIBAS DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:23:47 -0400
It seems to me that /public/proval-old is a filesystem of some sort since
there was no other virtualmountpoint messages.   Maybe it's a loopback
mount or something?

Try putting this in there to exclude it:
exclude.fs /public/proval-old

If that doesn't work, provide the output of a "df"

If it does work, it would just be a workaround for something weird going
on with your filesystems.

Regards,
Shawn
________________________________________________
Shawn Drew





Internet
rbs AT BU DOT EDU

Sent by: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
04/19/2010 12:31 PM
Please respond to
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU


To
ADSM-L
cc

Subject
Re: [ADSM-L] Linux Client failing with ANS1999E error






On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, James Choate wrote:

> 04/19/2010 08:56:26 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT BEGIN TEST_SCHEDULE
> 04/19/2010 08:40:00 04/19/2010 08:56:27 Incremental backup of volume
> '/'
> 04/19/2010 08:56:27 Incremental backup of volume '/boot'
> 04/19/2010 08:56:27 Incremental backup of volume '/public'
> 04/19/2010 08:56:27 Incremental backup of volume '/pictometry'
> 04/19/2010 08:56:27 Incremental backup of volume '/public/proval-old'
> 04/19/2010 08:56:28 ANS1115W File '/public/proval-old' excluded by
> Include/Exclude list 04/19/2010 08:56:28 Successful incremental
> backup of '/public/proval-old'

Jim -

In my April 16th response I suggested that the /public/proval-old file
system object be examined to determine exactly what it is, and if
there is anything wrong with it.  That still needs to be done.  It is
very odd that it should be included in "Incremental backup of volume"
messages, as those reflect Domain statements in your client options;
and you already have a /public in there, which on the surface of it
would preclude having a /public/proval-old (whose name suggests that
the word "approval" maybe should have been in there).  And having /
boot identified as a separate file system doesn't seem right for a
Linux system, where /boot is normally a subdirectory in the root volume.

I would recommend a full review of the client options (which may be on
the TSM client and server), to remove inappropriate Virtualmountpoint
specifications (along with proper obsolescence of the corresponding
filespaces on the TSM server).  Things just aren't right on that
client system.

    Richard Sims



This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for
the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error,
please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord
with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial,
is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the
integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will)
not therefore be liable for the message if modified. Please note that certain
functions and services for BNP Paribas may be performed by BNP Paribas RCC, Inc.