ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Including logs in DB2 backups

2011-02-23 16:35:55
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Including logs in DB2 backups
From: chris rees <rees_chris AT HOTMAIL DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:35:00 +0000
Hi

I'm not a fan of include logs for the same reasons you mentioned, we had backup 
failures caused by the retrieve processes stealing mount points.  We've 
excluded the logs and thoroughly tested recovery. It doesn't cause any issues 
as long as your normal archive log backups to TSM are working.

Have you got a test environment you can use to convince your DBA's?

Cheers

> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:16:04 -0500
> From: Thomas.Denier AT JEFFERSONHOSPITAL DOT ORG
> Subject: Including logs in DB2 backups
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> 
> Some months ago I reported that some of the DB2 servers at our site were 
> retrieving
> archived files during database backups. The TSM server ended up cancelling at 
> least
> one and sometimes more than one of our offsite tape reclamation processes to 
> make
> tape drives available for the retrieve operations. I got a response from 
> Michael
> Garnebode explaining that the fix was to put "exclude logs" in the 
> configuration
> files for DB2 backups. When I asked our DBAs to do this I found out that 
> including
> the logs in DB2 backups was a deliberate choice which they were very 
> reluctant to
> give up. At the time I was willing to settle for a compromise: keep including 
> the
> logs but reschedule some DB2 backups so that there was never more than one 
> concurrent
> retrieve, and never more than one reclamation process cancelled. The TSM 
> workload
> has increased since then, and I would rather not have any reclamation 
> processes
> cancelled on a routine basis. My impression is that the "include logs" option 
> is
> completely pointless in a TSM environment. Is this correct? 
                                          
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>