ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Old problem?

2011-09-14 10:13:24
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Old problem?
From: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:57:07 -0400
Check the backup copygroups in the policy domain for this node.
Directories, by default, are bound to the management class with the longest
RETONLY value. If two management classes both have the same highest value,
then the management class whose name is highest in the operating system's
collating sequence will be used. For example, suppose you have three
management classes with RETONLY values like this:

DISKPOOL: RETONLY=90
STANDARD: RETONLY=30
TAPEPOOL: RETONLY=90

Both DISKPOOL and TAPEPOOL have the highest RETONLY value. TAPEPOOL is
"higher" than DISKPOOL from a name sorting perspective. So TAPEPOOL would
be the default management class for directories.

So it is possible that directory backups are going to tape, but file
backups are going to a different (non-tape) pool.

Best regards,

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development
Level 3 Team Lead
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page:
http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu> wrote on 2011-09-14
09:43:18:

> From: TSM User <user.tsm AT GMAIL DOT COM>
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
> Date: 2011-09-14 09:46
> Subject: Old problem?
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
>
> I swear I've seen this before, years ago on older versions, but I don't
for
> the life of me remember what caused it, and Google searches aren't
turning
> anything up.  I've got a Windows 2008 6.2 server, and a number of Windows
> clients at 5.5.  At the moment, they're going straight to tape.  What I'm
> seeing is that a backup will mount a tape, write a bit of data, and
> dismount, and immediately request a remount.  Like I said, I'm convinced
I
> saw this once years ago, and that it was one odd little configuration
> setting somewhere.  But I can't think of what it could be.  The mount
> retention on the device class was left at the default of 60 minutes, and
I
> did see idle tapes still mounted last night, so that appears to be
working
> normally.  I'd appreciate any thoughts you all have.
>
> Thanks!
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>