ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Disparate Client Options

2010-01-05 11:39:50
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Disparate Client Options
From: Lindsay Morris <lindsay AT TSMWORKS DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:37:24 -0500
Right, but then Nick has to keep dsm.sys files up to date on all his
clients.
Ick.

What he wants is a central way to issue dsmc commands and point them to a
different TSM server, with no client-side setup required.
Right, Nick?

We don't have a good answer for this either.

Lindsay Morris
Principal
TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lindsay AT tsmworks DOT com


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Howard Coles <Howard.Coles AT ardenthealth DOT 
com
> wrote:

> In UNIX use the -optfile= option and specify an opt file that points to
> a separate Stanza in the dsm.sys file.  Another way of doing the same
> thing essentially.
>
> See Ya'
> Howard Coles Jr.
> John 3:16!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Nick Laflamme
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:54 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] Disparate Client Options
>
> Does it annoy or hinder anyone else that the "tcpserver" and "tcpport"
> options supported by the Windows version of dsmadmc aren't supported by
> the Unix clients?
>
> This seems to be a  deliberate choice by IBM; the 5.5.2 levels of the
> client make a point to quit with an error message if I try to use them;
> in the 5.5.1 level, my attempts to use them are merely ignored.
>
> I want them so I can have scripts issue QUERY SERVER commands against a
> central server and use that output to connect to new (or existing) TSM
> servers I maintain. Apparently, in the Unix world, I'm supposed to keep
> dsm.sys up to date on every Unix server on which I might run my scripts
> instead of dynamically specifying these parameters. Part of it is
> because of the number of servers on which I might access these scripts;
> part of is because we anticipate rolling out waves of new servers in the
> future as we retire older servers. Either way, the thought of keeping
> dsm.sys up to date just so I can run administrative scripts is annoying,
> to put it mildly.
>
> Anyone else with me on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>