Yea, it does seem a little odd.  And, you didn't mention tape errors and
stuck processes.  I've had those a time or two and they're no fun at
all.  But, I think their problem is related to what I was saying.  They
don't want a "cancel proc" normally killing out a process by force.
However, I would think they could institute a switch to the command
(like force=yes) that would shut a stuck process down in its tracks.
And, they could have you type some long response to a statement of '
"This could cause problems are you sure?" If so, enter "I'm Sure": '.
Or else, have TSM able to realize that something isn't working sooner,
and shut it down itself.  

See Ya'
Howard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Kauffman, Tom
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:01 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Question for the TSM 6.1 beta testers
> 
> Your "if it can" is my point. It's NOT copying data anymore, it is
> continuously reporting tape read errors, and it won't quit. The
> resulting output file will NOT be usable, and a process that normally
> takes an hour stretches into seven, eight, nine hours because of
failed
> retries on a dirty drive.
> 
> I want a clean process termination, and so far the developers haven't
> been able to figure this out - so I can either stop TSM or kill TSM to
> get the process to go away. I don't understand how the devolpers can
> put code together to handle incomplete processes at shutdown or
> termination but can't figure out how to use the same recovery for a
> forced process termination.
> 
> Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Howard Coles
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Question for the TSM 6.1 beta testers
> 
> Well, actually it does "work".  A "command" in TSM at the admin
console
> is more of a "suggestion" with TSM.  When you request a cancel of a
> process it wants to finish what it's doing if it can so as not to have
> a
> partially processed file.  Killing out a process in the middle of a
> file
> transfer messes up the tape by creating fragmented space.
> 
> Not only that, but I wouldn't get that worked up over a tape drive
> claiming to need cleaning.  Unless you start seeing tape errors,
you're
> not going to suffer from that nearly as much as you are going to
suffer
> by killing TSM in the middle of a process.
> 
> See Ya'
> Howard
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
Behalf
> > Of Kauffman, Tom
> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:07 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] Question for the TSM 6.1 beta testers
> >
> > If you're allowed to answer it.
> >
> > With the new database design and the new architecture, is it
possible
> > to terminate a process before it finishes the file it is processing?
> >
> > Explicityly, can I kill a reclaim or storage pool backup
immediately,
> > without waiting for the current file to be finished. This comes up
> ont
> > or two times a month, where a tape drive indicates it needs cleaning
> -
> > and I've only got another 200 GB to process on the current file. The
> > current workaround is to shut TSM down. I'd rather kill the process,
> > but it doesn't work currently.
> >
> > Thanks -
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient.  If you are
> not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action
> in
> reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
> notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
> and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.