I'm still getting used to the way Tivoli organizes things.  I've installed
what was in LATEST from .../maintenance/...  Should I get the latest from
.../patches/... instead?


At 09:40 AM 9/12/2000 -0400, you wrote:

What version of TSM 3.7.?.? What operating system. We are using Windows NT
with TSM version 3.7 on our server and a combination of 3.7.1.0 and
3.7.2.01 on the clients (I am slowly getting rid of the 3.7.1.0 clients due
to the fact that the exclude statements are ignored.) Going to release
3.7.2.01 als fixes several other problems with 3.7.1.0 (I think I have a
copy of what PMR's release 3.7.2.01 has if you like)

Sean Duffy
Network Analyst
Alcatel Canada TA

mailto:Sean.Duffy AT tas.alcatel DOT ca




                    Fred Johanson
                    <fred AT MIDWAY DOT UCH        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST 
DOT EDU
                    ICAGO.EDU>              cc:
                    Sent by: "ADSM:         Subject:     Excludes in TSM
                    Dist Stor
                    Manager"
                    <[email protected]
                    T.EDU>


                    09/11/00 12:56
                    PM
                    Please respond
                    to "ADSM: Dist
                    Stor Manager"





Last week, I upgraded my server to TSM V3R7.  The client had been TSM for
months and seems to have had no problem with the exclude file, which looks
like

EXclude  /adsmdb/.../*
EXclude  /adsmlog/.../*
EXclude  /adsmstgpool1/.../*
EXclude  /adsmstgpool2/.../*

        ...

EXclude  /adsmarch/.../*

I'd done an incremental before the upgrade and the occupancy for V3R1 was
about 4Gb.  After the upgrade, I started another incremental.  I waited a
reasonable length of time and I checked: 4Gb and still going.  It kept
going all afternoon, and the q sess showed 10Gb, 15Gb, etc.  It was still
run when I got home and it ran all night.  The next morning, q sess showed
100Gb and counting.  Q fi showed that it had processed a 30Gb and a 18Gb
storagepool.  What led me to cancel was the q occ of the node, which showed
that the process had backedup both storage pools and was starting on the
DB.  The pattern of the excludes has been working since V2R1, but suddenly
something seems to have gone wrong.  Have I missed something?


Fred Johanson
System Administrator, ADSM
S.E.A.
University of Chicago
773-702-8464

Fred Johanson
System Administrator, ADSM
S.E.A.
University of Chicago
773-702-8464