ADSM-L

Re: Discrepancy between "select * from summary" and dsmaccnt.log

2003-02-06 15:39:47
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between "select * from summary" and dsmaccnt.log
From: Bill Boyer <bill.boyer AT VERIZON DOT NET>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:34:13 -0500
I don't use it for client sessions, but for server processes I find it very
useful. Plus the TAPE MOUNT entries in the SUMMARY table are helpful for
charting your drive/library usage. If I need client stats, I go to the
accounting data or parse the activity log messages ORIGIN=CLIENT.

Bill Boyer
DSS, Inc.
"I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere." - ???

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
Richard Sims
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:45 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between "select * from summary" and
dsmaccnt.log


>I've seen something similar.  I was trying to get some info from
>summary to produce a report of when each node was last backed up.
>The info I got via "select from summary where activity='BACKUP'"
>seemed to be incomplete.  I opened a problem with TSM support and was
>informed that it's a known bug

If memory serves me, the Summary table has been unreliable, and the
subject of APARs, ever since it was introduced several years ago.
With this track record, I have to wonder if it will ever be a
reliable source of information.

  Richard Sims, BU

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>