ADSM-L

Re: Return Code Changes with V4.2.1 TSM Clients

2001-10-18 12:24:53
Subject: Re: Return Code Changes with V4.2.1 TSM Clients
From: "Seay, Paul" <seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:21:47 -0400
You are absolutely correct.  The purpose of this stream is to see if we can
influence development to make the right decision.

What our company requires is to be able to do exactly what you are saying.
That said, we will be creating separate jobs for different processes only
including what we need to backup and using an external scheduler with dsmc
commands and checking the return codes, just like you are proposing.  That
way the RC=0 really means something and anything with an RC=4 is bad from
our point of view.  Before the "correction" in 4.2.1 to make a RC=4 come out
on any file not being backed up, we were concerned.  We want it to work the
way the new client works, but we are a newer TSM environment and the change
has no legacy effect on us.  IBM/Tivoli has always been good about backward
compatibility with a few exceptions over the years.

Now, we must also think about accommodating the desktop client user.  They
need something simple like was suggested in my first go round.  A set of
defaults that simulates kind of what is said.

For the Oracle scenario, my suggested design would have said if >0 files do
not get backed up or >0% fail then give me a RC=4 on that client or dsmc
command.  Sorry, if that is not what was communicated.

We discussed this issue at SHARE in Minneapolis.  It will come up again in
Nashville.  I can tell everyone, SHARE has a lot of influence on Tivoli
Development.  I am a Deputy Project Manager involved with the Distributed
Storage Project.  So, I am trying to get this right this time.  And, make
sure that we communicate the correct implementation requirements to Tivoli.
You cannot ask for the world, but you can ask to make it meet the business
needs in a way that lets Tivoli implement the functionality over several
releases.  Be careful what you ask for, you may actually get it.  I will try
to continue to monitor this discussion stream and collect the requirement
and present it at the requirements session at SHARE in Nashville.  Every TSM
customer should think about sending people to SHARE, there are some
brilliant people there from Tivoli Development and customers.