Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*challenging\s+server\-to\-server\s+implementation\s+\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*challenging\s+server\-to\-server\s+implementation\s+\!\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: Rodrigo Gazzaneo <rodrigo_gazzaneo AT HOTMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:52:10 EST; Hi List, Challenging ... at least for me ! I will be implementing a server-to-server solution, with a smaller site with a single 3590-B11 library and a second bigger with a 3494 and 4 drives. The big; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01181.html (11,947 bytes)
2. Re: challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: "Laura G. Buckley" <buckley AT STORSOL DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:24:00 -0600; Hi Rodrigo, Unfortunately, the process you described for moving the node from server 1 to server 2 with server-to-server virtual volumes will not work. This is because when you create the copy storag; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01188.html (11,872 bytes)
3. challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of; Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:38:08 -0500; Hi List, Challenging ... at least for me ! I will be implementing a server-to-server solution, with a smaller site with a single 3590-B11 library and a second bigger with a 3494 and 4 drives. The big; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01189.html (11,994 bytes)
4. Re: challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: Trevor Foley <Trevor.Foley AT BANKERSTRUST.COM DOT AU>; Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:21:01 +1000; Hi Rodrigo, The ADSM Server-to-Server redbook (http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245244.html) talks about issues with moving nodes around from one server to another. regards, Trevor; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01209.html (14,795 bytes)
5. Re: challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: Rodrigo Gazzaneo <rodrigo_gazzaneo AT HOTMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:13:15 EST; Hi Laura, glad you've come to my aid ! As you can see, I have never implemented Server-to-server yet. As I read on Administration Guide, server 1 would reference the server device class, but it wasn'; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01210.html (14,461 bytes)
6. challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: Othmar Weber <OTHMAR.WEBER.OW AT BAYER-AG DOT DE>; Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:29:37 +0200; Hi Rodrigo, the following trick works: ServerA uses virtual volumes of ServerB ServerB has defined itself as a server with nodename of ServerA (command on ServerB: def server ServerB pa=?**? comm=tcp; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01213.html (11,332 bytes)
7. Re: challenging server-to-server implementation ! (score: 1): Author: Rodrigo Gazzaneo <rodrigo_gazzaneo AT HOTMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:49:32 EST; Hi Othmar, the following trick works: ServerA uses virtual volumes of ServerB ServerB has defined itself as a server with nodename of ServerA (command on ServerB: def server ServerB pa=?**? comm=tcpi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1999-10/msg01244.html (11,799 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]