ADSM-L

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

2010-04-19 21:11:05
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Linux Client failing with ANS1999E error
From: James Choate <jchoate AT CHOOSES1 DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:41:53 -0600
I am looking for the longest fully qualified file name on the system.

An error=6 might be indicating ENAMETOOLONG (The only errno that equals 6 in 
Linux).

Repeated runs (manual) today have resulting in the exact same result.

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Richard Sims
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:31 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: 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