Hi Don,

The problem with the ISC-AC health-monitor wouldn't happen to be
with the server status showing unknown would it? That's the issue
we have.

Thanks for any response!

ISC - 6.0.1
ITSM - Admin Center 5.3.2.0
TSM 5.3.2.1


Don France wrote:

> Hey Allen,
>
> I have your phone (from Oxford);  still OWE you , big time;  let me know 
> where to send you (at least) the donera that was on it, and if you want the 
> phone back!  Contact me off the list (please), with your addr, eh!?!
>
> The ISC-AC still sucks (at its latest 5.3.2.0 release, I had some difficulty 
> with health-monitor, but fixed it -- the part that sets me "off" now is the 
> maint. plan;  it forced and re-forced the "parallel" copy-pools when what I 
> wanted was to merge two primaries into a single, offsite copy-pool --  sigh:).
>
> Maybe you're right;  TSM is too diverse in its installed environments and the 
> admins that support it.  But, I gotta say, the old GUI was fine (for some 
> tasks), just needed some minor improvements --- like quit collapsing the 
> whole tree of policy constructs, so I can change more than one MC without 7 
> mouse-clicks.  The IDEA is good, to get a single interface to multiple TSM 
> servers, but it sure loses something in the translation to implementation... 
> not to mention the Websphere issues you mention!
>
> Best regards,
> Don
>
> Don France
> email:  don_france at att_dot_net
>
> -------------- Original message from "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>: 
> --------------
>
> > >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:28:06 -0500, Richard Mochnaczewski
> > said:
> >
> >
> > > I had some problems with the setup of the Admin Console. I placed a
> > > call with IBM, [...]
> >
> >
> > The ranting about the ISC was legion in Oxford, and clearly a source
> > of frustration for the IBMers there; there were many questions or
> > "I-want" type statements which were answered with "We're doing that in
> > the Admin Console". It's clear that they've placed a lot of effort
> > and thought into the AC design.
> >
> > I'm starting to think that we, TSM admins, are just too varied a bunch
> > to have our needs met within the constraints of one such system and
> > the ideology that must be imposed with it. Maybe IBM can just ditch
> > the GUI idea entirely, and leave the market to the 3rd party tools.
> > Or maybe they can ditch the idea that the GUI is 'full featured', and
> > deploy something intended to coddle folks who are never going to make
> > the effort, and omit the hard bits.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm in sympathy with the desire to web-ify many administrative aspects
> > of many IBM tools under a unified umbrella. But the One Ring to Rule
> > Them All attitude has well-documented failure modes, and nobody wants
> > to be Sauron at the end.
> >
> > It gets worse when the One Ring is as (pardon me) shaky and
> > unmaintainable as Websphere. We've had deep, deep _DEEP_ problems
> > with that product. A low point was when a level 2 tech in all
> > seriousness told us he wasn't sure the product supported HTTP.
> >
> > No, really. I can't make that up. Our tech replied that maybe they
> > should change the product name to just "Sphere".
> >
> > I've been through the AIX install of the ISC and AC on a disposable
> > LPAR several times now; even with a fresh clean box and support on the
> > line, we've not been able to get a working console up, which I find
> > more amusing than irritating, any more.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Allen S. Rout