ADSM-L

[no subject]

2015-10-04 17:35:06
Dwight,

What did you have to do to correct the retention problem you had?
Or do you still have problem today and waiting for a fix?

Thanks,
Angel
   -----Original Message-----
   From:       cookde [SMTP:cookde AT BP DOT COM]
   Sent:       Monday, January 17, 2000 11:12 AM
   To:         ADSM-L
   Cc:         cookde
   Subject:    Re: Incorect retention.

   Nope, I wouldn't upgrade to .40 !  it has some "hang" bugs and from
   what
   I've been reading about .50 you don't want that either.

   I'm waiting on (I guess) .60

   Dwight

   > ----------
   > From:         ANGEL BUGARIN[SMTP:ANGEL.BUGARIN AT MAIL.SPRINT DOT COM]
   > Reply To:     ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
   > Sent:         Monday, January 17, 2000 1:56 PM
   > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
   > Subject:      Re: Incorect retention.
   >
   > Thanks Dwight. Our server is currently at 3.1.2.20. The client is
   at
   > 3.1.0.6.
   >
   > I used the "q arc /some_directory/" command to confirm the
   expiration
   > date.
   >
   > I'm not sure why ADSM would use the longest retention MC when I
   > specified
   > the MC in the script. Also the other clients does not have the same
   > problem.
   >
   > Do you suggest I should upgrade our server to .40 to get rid of
   this
   > problem?
   >
   > Angel
   >    -----Original Message-----
   >    From:       cookde [SMTP:cookde AT BP DOT COM]
   >    Sent:       Monday, January 17, 2000 9:01 AM
   >    To:         ADSM-L
   >    Cc:         cookde
   >    Subject:    Re: Incorect retention.
   >
   >    What adsm server version ?
   >
   >    Prior to .40 there was a little deal where DIRECTORY PATHS were
   >    archived
   >    into the longest retention archive management class that existed
   >    under the
   >    client's domain.   The .40 "cleanup archdir" command is used to
   >    correct this
   >    little glitch.   Sooo that is when you would archive a file, the
   >    directory
   >    path was also archived into that longest retention management
   >    class... I
   >    never tried archiving just/only/specifically the directory but I
   can
   >    see
   >    where this would probably end up being bound to a retention
   period
   >    that is
   >    the longest.
   >
   >    Are you using the "show archive" command to see the archive and
   >    determine
   >    the retention ?
   >
   >    Usually the archived directories associated with an archived
   file
   >    won't show
   >    up in just a "q archive some_dir_path"  'cause if they would I
   would
   >    have
   >    deleted them long ago from some of our environments...
   >
   >    THIS HAS BEEN A REAL PAIN TO ME !
   >
   >    'cause of problems with .40 & .50 I'm staying back at .5 on a
   bunch
   >    of my
   >    servers...some of the clients on those servers have 300
   directories
   >    EACH of
   >    which have about 1/2 million archived entries in the DB which
   comes
   >    out to
   >    be 150,000,000 entries JUST FOR ONE CLIENT
   >
   >    ARGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   >
   >    Hope this helps...
   >    later,
   >            Dwight
   >
   >
   >    > ----------
   >    > From:         ANGEL
   BUGARIN[SMTP:ANGEL.BUGARIN AT MAIL.SPRINT DOT COM]
   >    > Reply To:     ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
   >    > Sent:         Monday, January 17, 2000 12:07 PM
   >    > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
   >    > Subject:      Incorect retention.
   >    >
   >    > Hello everyone.
   >    >
   >    > I performed an archive process on a file system using a test
   >    > management class. The management class has 1 day retention.
   >    > The command I used follows:
   >    >
   >    > dsmc arc /u/stimpy/ -archmc=aix1_test_mc -su=yes
   -desc="test_bu"
   >    >
   >    > The result was exact. That is it used the correct tape pool
   and
   >    > the retention is for 1 day.
   >    >
   >    > Then I ran another archive on a different file system:
   >    >
   >    > dsmc arc /utils_hisprt43/ -archmc=aix1_test_mc -su=yes
   >    -desc="test_bu"
   >    >
   >    > The result of the above process is totally unacceptable. That
   is,
   >    the
   >    > retention
   >    > date is for 5 years, not 1 day.
   >    >
   >    > Can someone please shed some light into this?
   >    >
   >    > TIA
   >    >
   >    > Angel
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    >
   >    20
   >
   >



--openmail-part-10160140-00000001--
=========================================================================
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [no subject], Unknown <=