Hi Simon,
You can try :
q cont
type 'help q count' for exact syntax.
Tahir
Automatic digest processor wrote:
> Subject: ADSM-L Digest - 10 Apr 1999 to 11 Apr 1999 (#1999-32)
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:00:59 -0400
> From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Reply-To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> To: Recipients of ADSM-L digests <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> There are 6 messages totalling 494 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Mystery of the vanishing tapes...
> 2. ADSM/AIX 3.1.2.20 - Mgmt Surrogate keys vs DEFAULT re-assigment
> 3. SP4 and 3.1.0.6 (2)
> 4. Query what tape file is on
> 5. Problem deleting a disk storage pool volume
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Mystery of the vanishing tapes...
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:31:00 -0400
> From: Kenneth Bury <kbury AT CAROLINA.RR DOT COM>
>
> Our operations people have brought the same problem to my attention. I
> haven't had a chance to look into it in much depth -- yet. Our server is
> 3.2.0 on AIX.
>
> Kenneth Bury
> kbury AT carolinas DOT org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf
> > Of
> > Bruce Elrick
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 23:57
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: Mystery of the vanishing tapes...
> >
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > are you doing incremental DB backups? One possibility is the
> > fact that all the
> > backups in a series (full followed by a number of incrementals
> > but not the following
> > full) have to expire as a group (I think) so perhaps the ones
> > that were in vault
> > status two days ago were really 11 days old but not allowed out
> > of vault status
> > until a day ago when a new full was done. Then today the del
> > volh tramples on the
> > volume that is 12 days old.
> >
> > Note: I am speculating and have actually confirmed the details
> > of the behavious I
> > am speculating on.
> >
> > Interesting problem, though...
> > Bruce
> >
> > Scott Fluegge wrote:
> >
> > > I have a problem with one of my ADSM servers. It keeps
> > "forgetting" about a
> > > couple of its Disaster-recovery tapes. I have this server
> > configured the same
> > > as my other servers and they do not have the problem. I have
> > checked to make
> > > sure that I had the following settings:
> > >
> > > DB Backup Series Expiration Days: 7 Day(s)
> > >
> > > And when I do delete my volhist I do:
> > > delete volhistory todate=-12 type=dbbackup
> > >
> > > This should insure that ADSM DB Backups are in the vault
> > retrieve state for five
> > > days! Yet just yesterday I lost two
> > > more tapes that were in the vault status the day before! I now
> > do an inventory
> > > comparison between what is in the vault
> > > what ADSM thinks is in the vault. I have to do this every day!
> > Not fun...
> > >
> > > Anyone ever have this problem and know why? I am going to
> > start making a list
> > > of all tapes in the vault (f=d) so
> > > I can see what type of tape they are (copy pool or db).
> > >
> > > The server in question is "ADSM Server for AIX-RS/6000 -
> > Version 3, Release 1,
> > > Level 2.15". The other servers that
> > > do NOT have this problem are running "Version 3, Release 1, Level 1.5 "
> > >
> > > This is really driving me nuts! Please help!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Elrick, Ph.D.
> > mailto:belrick AT home DOT com
> > http://members.home.net/belrick/
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: ADSM/AIX 3.1.2.20 - Mgmt Surrogate keys vs DEFAULT re-assigment
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:08:25 -0300
> From: Armando Lemos <armando.lemos AT DB DOT COM>
>
> Hey Server Development :
>
> (Although it may seem a very special situation, I would consider this not a
> feature of the product in some cases).
>
> I was running ADSM/AIX 3.1.1.5.
>
> As you are aware, there were some versioning control problems that were fixed
> in
> 3.1.2.20, which was the version I applied this weekend.
>
> The expiration process took quite a long time, but I consider this "normal
> operation" due to the retention problems so far.
>
> The problem that I got was the following:
>
> Because I was aware that ADSM was keeping more data that it should, I though I
> could change the DEFAULT ( assigndfltmgmt) Management class to something with
> a
> longer retention period, so that I could "minimize" the expiration process (
> and
> in a way, have more backup versions that I normally wanted, but less than what
> ADSM had today).
>
> So, I had two MC : M1 was my previous DEFAULT mgmt, With VEREXIST=Nolimit,
> RETEXTRA=32. I issued the command "ASSIGN DFLTMGMT <domain> <pol> M3" so that
> this new M3 would have VEREXIST=Nolimt, RETEXTRA=94, and thus, keeping data
> for
> 94 days ( not 32 anymore).
>
> I did this BEFORE the upgrade procedure, so that the very first 3.1.2.20
> "expire
> inventory" would get the new ( M3) default mgmt.
>
> Now, this part isthe trickiest part : As far as I am aware, the Management
> Class Name assignment is not "name binded". That means that regardless of the
> size ( and the name that we defined) the server maintains special internal
> pointers ( surrogate keys right?) that links the "DEFAULT" class to the actual
> (assigned) default class.
>
> My assuption is that this DEFAULT-bind operation is performed during the
> backup
> operation, and regardless of the new "assigment", the server does not
> "internally rebind" the new DEFAULT management class. In my example, I was
> using
> M1 as the DEFAULT. Although I changed to M3, all data was expired as it was
> still being controlled by M1.
>
> Is this correct? Does the server still keeps mgmt info poiting to the "old"
> DEFAULT class in this case?
>
> Let me know if the DEFAULT mgmt assignment that I did was possible. maybe this
> is a red alert for other people that tried not to release all data ( and try
> to
> reduce expiration).
>
> Rgrds,
>
> Armando Lemos
> Deutsche Bank
> AIX/ADSM Technical Support
>
> ( Please also reply directly to my e-mail address)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: SP4 and 3.1.0.6
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:42:07 -0600
> From: Bill Smoldt <smoldt AT STORSOL DOT COM>
>
> Nathan,
>
> I'm having problems with SP4 and V3.1.0.6 at two sites. The client
> scheduler is crashing (accvio) when it tries to contact the server and the
> server doesn't respond. The client scheduler also crashes at other times
> that we can't isolate.
>
> I don't know the hot patch level at either site. Would you please list the
> hot fixes you've applied on a system that isn't experiencing any problem?
> Have you tried to start a client schedule service with bad tcpserver
> information in the .opt file or when the ADSM server is down.
>
> I haven't experienced any noticeable memory leaks that I know of.
>
> Having covered the actual issues, let me address the testing issues. I
> don't want to do this in lieu of an IBM response, but I've had considerable
> experience in shipping products.
>
> IBM certainly did testing with SP4. There is no way to test all the
> permutations of a product as complex as ADSM when something new ships. You
> will see more and more issues like this as we install more ADSM sites.
> Installed base is what flushes out all the minor issues with a product, not
> the regression testing in the lab.
>
> I'm sure that as each problem is resolved, IBM puts the test for that issue
> in a regression test for the next time. Sometimes those things slip
> through, but overall they've done an excellent job with ADSM. ADSM backs up
> a significant portion of the world's data every night quite reliably.
>
> What you see on this list are problems. What you don't see on this list are
> all of the non-problems. The only time people come here are when they have
> a problem.
>
> I'm only stating the obvious here because I don't want to turn this thread
> into another bashing of the engineering group and testing issues. They've
> done an incredible job, in my opinion.
>
> I do have this as an open issue with level 2 ADSM support and I expect that
> I'll hear back from them this week. It may be something simple or complex,
> but I'm quite willing to go through the resolution pain so that we can get
> all the minor issues with this release fixed.
>
> I certainly understand your apprehension, but you've eased mine by
> successfully running on so many clients. Let's see if we can give IBM some
> more data points between us.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Smoldt SSSI
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> www.storsol.com
> smoldt AT storsol DOT com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of
> Nathan King
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 8:45 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: SP4 and 3.1.0.6
>
> I've been feeling a little uneasy regarding all the recent posts regarding
> problems with 3.1.0.6 and SP4.
>
> We actually had a lot of problems with the 3.1.0.5 client.. especially with
> the 'active object not found' error. We therefore decided to standardise on
> 3.1.0.6 which appeared to be more reliable (from our perspective).
>
> We currently have a few hundred clients now at SP4 and 3.1.0.6 and a few
> hundred more to convert to SP4. Fortuntately we have not as yet experienced
> any problems with severe memory leaks / crashes. I know that our standard
> SP4 load includes a number of additional MS hot fixes, but I'm unsure
> whether this is the source of our current stability. I'd hate to be further
> down the road with this and then discover that I need to backlevel all my
> clients.
>
> Does anyone have any open problems with IBM regarding SP4 compatibility
> issues? Has IBM really properly tested the 3.1.0.6 client with SP4? Before
> we moved to SP4 I called IBM support for more info. They were confident that
> the client would actually perform better under SP4... but I'm now wondering
> if it really underwent any testing at all based upon the feedback I've seen
> in this forum.
> Is anyone from IBM going to comment on this issue?
>
> Nathan
>
> Nathan King
> Open Systems Storage Management
> * (210) 913-5755
> * Pager: 753-5755
> * E-mail: nathan.king AT usaa DOT com
>
> The opinions herein are mine and almost certainly do not reflect those of my
> employer.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Query what tape file is on
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:21:02 +1200
> From: Craig Murphy <craigm AT NZ1.IBM DOT COM>
>
> How do I query what tape a particular file is on without actually doing a
> restore. If I do a restore then it will tell me what tape to load if I do a
> "q actlog". There must be a way to find this info without actually using
> the restore/retrieve command.
>
> Thanks
> Craig
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: SP4 and 3.1.0.6
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:20:39 +1000
> From: Mark Reschke <M.Reschke AT ITS.UNIMELB.EDU DOT AU>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I have upgraded all servers and the majority of workstations to NT4SP4 and
> NT3.1.0.6. I had a three of the servers and a large number of workstations
> bring up access violation errors for the scheduler service. For all the
> servers and all but one of the workstations a reinstall of the scheduler
> service seemed to fix the problem. It appears as if something is not quite
> right in the registry that is fixed by a 'dsmcutil remove', 'dsmcutil
> install'. On the only workstations that this didn't work for (mine of
> course!!!) I had to totally remove the ADSM client and reinstall. It too
> seems to be working OK. I currently have no problems with NT4SP4 and the
> NT3.1.0.6 client. Just to make your day there are strong rumours that
> another SP (SP5) is not too far away. Good luck.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
> Mark Reschke
> Systems Support Analyst
> Information Technology Services
> University of Melbourne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Bill Smoldt
> Sent: Monday, 12 April 1999 5:42
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: SP4 and 3.1.0.6
>
> Nathan,
>
> I'm having problems with SP4 and V3.1.0.6 at two sites. The client
> scheduler is crashing (accvio) when it tries to contact the server and the
> server doesn't respond. The client scheduler also crashes at other times
> that we can't isolate.
>
> I don't know the hot patch level at either site. Would you please list the
> hot fixes you've applied on a system that isn't experiencing any problem?
> Have you tried to start a client schedule service with bad tcpserver
> information in the .opt file or when the ADSM server is down.
>
> I haven't experienced any noticeable memory leaks that I know of.
>
> Having covered the actual issues, let me address the testing issues. I
> don't want to do this in lieu of an IBM response, but I've had considerable
> experience in shipping products.
>
> IBM certainly did testing with SP4. There is no way to test all the
> permutations of a product as complex as ADSM when something new ships. You
> will see more and more issues like this as we install more ADSM sites.
> Installed base is what flushes out all the minor issues with a product, not
> the regression testing in the lab.
>
> I'm sure that as each problem is resolved, IBM puts the test for that issue
> in a regression test for the next time. Sometimes those things slip
> through, but overall they've done an excellent job with ADSM. ADSM backs up
> a significant portion of the world's data every night quite reliably.
>
> What you see on this list are problems. What you don't see on this list are
> all of the non-problems. The only time people come here are when they have
> a problem.
>
> I'm only stating the obvious here because I don't want to turn this thread
> into another bashing of the engineering group and testing issues. They've
> done an incredible job, in my opinion.
>
> I do have this as an open issue with level 2 ADSM support and I expect that
> I'll hear back from them this week. It may be something simple or complex,
> but I'm quite willing to go through the resolution pain so that we can get
> all the minor issues with this release fixed.
>
> I certainly understand your apprehension, but you've eased mine by
> successfully running on so many clients. Let's see if we can give IBM some
> more data points between us.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Smoldt SSSI
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> www.storsol.com
> smoldt AT storsol DOT com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of
> Nathan King
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 8:45 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: SP4 and 3.1.0.6
>
> I've been feeling a little uneasy regarding all the recent posts regarding
> problems with 3.1.0.6 and SP4.
>
> We actually had a lot of problems with the 3.1.0.5 client.. especially with
> the 'active object not found' error. We therefore decided to standardise on
> 3.1.0.6 which appeared to be more reliable (from our perspective).
>
> We currently have a few hundred clients now at SP4 and 3.1.0.6 and a few
> hundred more to convert to SP4. Fortuntately we have not as yet experienced
> any problems with severe memory leaks / crashes. I know that our standard
> SP4 load includes a number of additional MS hot fixes, but I'm unsure
> whether this is the source of our current stability. I'd hate to be further
> down the road with this and then discover that I need to backlevel all my
> clients.
>
> Does anyone have any open problems with IBM regarding SP4 compatibility
> issues? Has IBM really properly tested the 3.1.0.6 client with SP4? Before
> we moved to SP4 I called IBM support for more info. They were confident that
> the client would actually perform better under SP4... but I'm now wondering
> if it really underwent any testing at all based upon the feedback I've seen
> in this forum.
> Is anyone from IBM going to comment on this issue?
>
> Nathan
>
> Nathan King
> Open Systems Storage Management
> * (210) 913-5755
> * Pager: 753-5755
> * E-mail: nathan.king AT usaa DOT com
>
> The opinions herein are mine and almost certainly do not reflect those of my
> employer.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Problem deleting a disk storage pool volume
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:05:04 +1000
> From: Trevor Foley <Trevor.Foley AT BANKERSTRUST.COM DOT AU>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the responses to this. I've already tried do the audit volume and
> it says that there is nothing on the volume. Having to do an audit db is what
> I feared (although expected).
>
> One of our guys kicked off an audit db while the server is online. I didn't
> know that you could do that. I assume that it will only report errors, not
> fix them. So far it has been running for 27 hours on a 30 GB database.
> Hopefully Neil's 1 GB per hour estimate will be close (although having it run
> online is likely to push that out).
>
> Trevor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dusedau, Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Dusedau AT VIACOM DOT COM]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 10:24 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem deleting a disk storage pool volume
>
> Trevor,
>
> Mecki suggested running an 'audit DB', this may be the way you will have to
> go but I would try 'audit volume' first since the database audit must be run
> standalone, has no way to stop it and restart it and depending on your
> database size can run for days. There were also some special commands
> created for the bit file problem, you might want to contact support and talk
> to them about it.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Stefan Dusedau
> infoWorks
> A Viacom technology service
> (212)258-6739
> stefan.dusedau AT viacom DOT com <mailto:stefan.dusedau AT viacom DOT com>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Foley
> [mailto:Trevor.Foley AT BANKERSTRUST.COM DOT AU]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 2:31 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Problem deleting a disk storage pool volume
>
> G'day,
>
> We are having trouble deleting a disk storage pool volume as
> follows:
>
> 04/09/1999 16:27:18 ANR2017I Administrator FOLEYT issued
> command: DELETE
> VOLUME /adsm/sp7/00 discard=yes
> 04/09/1999 16:27:18 ANR9999D dfqry.c(595): Missing row for
> bitfile
> 0.143665444.
>
> If we do a QUERY CONTENT or AUDIT VOLUME, both return a 'no
> match found ... '.
>
> Any ideas as to how we can get rid of it?
>
> thanks,
>
> Trevor
|
