ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Huge differences in file count after exporting node to a different server

2017-10-25 16:19:18
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Huge differences in file count after exporting node to a different server
From: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:07:28 -0400
Those numbers are as of this morning.  There has been no activity on this
node since the export started until about an hour ago (just found out the
original contact/maintainer of the server has left the university and
someone else has taken over).

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Harris, Steven <
steven.harris AT btfinancialgroup DOT com> wrote:

> Hi Zoltan
>
> Are the  old server numbers from export time or current time?  If current
> time you may have had some 5 million small files expire in the interim.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve
>
> Steven Harris
> TSM Admin/Consultant
> Canberra, Australia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Zoltan Forray
> Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2017 6:35 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] Huge differences in file count after exporting node to a
> different server
>
> I am curious if anyone has seen anything like this.
>
> A node was exported (filedata=all) from one server to another (all servers
> are 7.1.7.300 RHEL)
>
> After successful completion (took a week due to 6TB+ to process) and
> copypool backups on the new server, the Total Occupancy counts are the same
> (13.52TB).  However, the file counts are waaay off (original=17,561,816 vs
> copy=12,471,862)
>
> There haven't been any backups performed to either the original (since the
> export) or new node. Policies are the same on both servers and even if they
> weren't, that wouldn't explain the same occupancy size/total.
>
> Neither server runs dedup (DISK based storage volumes).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> *Zoltan Forray*
> Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator
> Xymon Monitor Administrator
> VMware Administrator
> Virginia Commonwealth University
> UCC/Office of Technology Services
> www.ucc.vcu.edu
> zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
> Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
> never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
> security number or confidential personal information. For more details
> visit http://phishing.vcu.edu/
>
>
> This message and any attachment is confidential and may be privileged or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. You should immediately delete the
> message if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this
> email by mistake please delete it from your system; you should not copy the
> message or disclose its content to anyone.
>
> This electronic communication may contain general financial product advice
> but should not be relied upon or construed as a recommendation of any
> financial product. The information has been prepared without taking into
> account your objectives, financial situation or needs. You should consider
> the Product Disclosure Statement relating to the financial product and
> consult your financial adviser before making a decision about whether to
> acquire, hold or dispose of a financial product.
>
> For further details on the financial product please go to
> http://www.bt.com.au
>
> Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator
Xymon Monitor Administrator
VMware Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
www.ucc.vcu.edu
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://phishing.vcu.edu/


ADSM.ORG Privacy and Data Security by KimLaw, PLLC