Paul,

It is definitely, absolutely, positively, seen it myself - fixed.... Been
fixed for years. Forget DIRMC.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]
> On Behalf Of Paul Fielding
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 16:06
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance
> issues resolved or not.
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I took a look through the Quickfacts (something I should have
> done long ago).  It does indeed suggest that surrogate
> directories are created and the real directories are restored
> as they are hit.
>
> Has anyone really observed this to be genuinely true?  I have
> in the past observed the double-tape-mount theory, and though
> I understand it is supposedly fixed, I haven't heard anyone
> say "I have seen it, I know it works, you no longer need to
> keep a dirmc diskpool".
>
> Of course, if it is indeed working as designed now, it
> doesn't resolve the other dirmc issues currently being
> discussed in this thread.
>
> Is there anyone on the list who has in recent history decided
> to ditch using a dirmc diskpool altogether and done so with
> success on the restore side?
>
> regards,
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Sims" <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
> To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation
> performance issues resolved or not.
>
>
> > Paul -
> >
> > This generally falls under the TSM term Restore Order processing.
> > We've discussed it on the List before. I have an entry on
> it in ADSM
> > QuickFacts which you can refer to as a preliminary to
> further pursuit
> > in IBM doc.
> >
> >   Richard Sims    http://people.bu.edu/rbs
> >
> > On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Paul Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> I'd be interested in more discussion on this point.   My original
> >> understanding was actually a bit different that that.  The
> impression
> >> I had was that originally directory tree structures were restored
> >> before any files
> >> happened, period. Following that, files would be restored.
>  Net result
> >> -
> >> tapes might get mounted twice.
> >>
> >> Is my understanding incorrect? (could well be).  If this
> behavior has
> >> indeed been fixed so that directories are restored as they
> are hit on
> >> the tape (with a pre-created non-ACLed directory being
> created first)
> >> then it would
> >> indeed make sense that a DIRMC pool is no longer needed.
> >>
> >> Is there any documentation on this somewhere I can reference?
> >
>