Hello, I'm struggling with why the target storage directory pool needs way more space than what the source pool contains. Both servers are at TSM 8.1.5.0. The target server is there solely for receiving protect and replicate data. It does nothing else. The source storage pool is 8.1 TB's in size and is 86% full. That's 7 TB's in use. The target pool was 7.7 TB's. I just added 2.1 TB's. So its now 9.8 TB's. Its currently at 87.5% full. That's 8.5 TB's in use. That right there doesnt add up. 7 TB's source. 8.5 TB's target. If I start the protect and let it run it will fill up the target pool. I'm doing a forcereconcile=yes. IBM says to add space to the target (I did) and upgrade to 8.1.7. I havent done that yet for various reasons. The main one being the hub server, which is also a main TSM server for many backups, needs to be upgraded first per IBM although I've seen the hub at a lower level before. I've also been doing manual move containers with defrag=yes on the target but that doesnt really seem to help the % in use much. And I havent even done the replicate yet. At least not lately. Does anyone have any suggestions? Why doesnt 7 TB's of data on the source fit into a 9.8 TB target pool? Do I bite the bullet and do multiple upgrades to 8.1.7 (hub, source, target) and hope that fixes it? Thx...
-
-
Community Tip: Forum Rules (PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ BEFORE POSTING)
Click the link above to access ADSM.ORG Acceptable Use Policy and forum rules which should be observed when using this website. Violators may be banned from this website. This notice will disappear after you have made at least 3 posts.
Protect target pool not big enough but should be(?)
- Thread starter rdemaat
- Start date
marclant
ADSM.ORG Moderator
Sounds like there may be orphan extents on the target. FORCERECONCILE ensures that all extents that exist on the source are on the target. But it doesn't remove extra/orphan extents from the target. It does however delete extents on the target that were deleted on the source since the last protect.
You are right in thinking that it should be relatively the same. Does expiration run on the target server? Because that's how old data is normally removed. If it doesn't run, that may explain it. If it runs, there's likely orphans or extra extents on the target.
My advice, continue to work the case with IBM.
You are right in thinking that it should be relatively the same. Does expiration run on the target server? Because that's how old data is normally removed. If it doesn't run, that may explain it. If it runs, there's likely orphans or extra extents on the target.
My advice, continue to work the case with IBM.
