Hi Andy,
Thanks, for the excellent responses (below and to Mark's message) ... and
know the community continues to appreciate your participation (here and
elsewhere)!
I am relieved to learn DIRMC is still relevant, and will continue to
advocate its use with customers supporting Win2K, Netware and AIX servers.
And, I appreciate your expansion of the question about point-in-time
considerations... that's more ammunition in our arsenal for helping
configure for speedy restores.
Best regards,
Don
Don France
Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant
Tivoli Storage Manager, WinNT/2K, AIX/Unix, OS/390
San Jose, Ca
(408) 257-3037
mailto:don_france AT ayett DOT net (change aye to reply)
Professional Association of Contract Employees
(P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
Andrew Raibeck
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:32 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Directories written in the wrong pool, although using dirmc
option
Hi Don,
>>
I share Mark's sentiments... on TWO points:
- if this was resolved, for both users in the discussion, let's share the
results;
<<
It's not a question of sharing results (of course results should be
shared), but in the back-and-forth involved in gathering enough
information to diagnose the problem. I see no point in cluttering up the
list server with traces and other attachments that, by themselves, are
almost certainly of no interest to the majority of users (not to mention
that I don't always get attachments from ADSM-L posts), and some of which
might ultimately not be pertinent to the issue.
Arnaud has already communicated to me that (a) he can not recreate the
problem reliably, and (b) as he mentioned in his last ADSM-L post on this
subject, he created a new policy domain that does for him what he wants.
So the root cause of his trouble is unknowable.
>>
- if DIRMC is no longer relevant, I'd sure like to know why! Win2K is
becoming ever more prevalent, and most data center customers go wild with
lots of permission groups (causing the ACL's to grow too large to be
contained in the TSM db -- I used to think!)
<<
Yes, DIRMC is still relevant.
>>
The question that's left is whether a given restore will be just as fast
(NQR or classic) since dir's are now more readily backed up -- and, if
that's true, what about point-it-time restores that would get a mix of
dir's restored, to match the state of a time further back than the most
recent backup?!?
<<
Restoring directories whose backup versions exist in storage pools is much
like restoring small files in terms of the performance overhead. So yes,
it will almost certainly take longer to restore 100,000 directories from
storage pools than it would to restore 100,000 directories that reside
strictly in the TSM database. So putting directories in a disk pool (and
not allowing them to migrate) saves time on restore, as opposed to
restoring them from tape. In the same manner, putting very small files in
a disk pool could also save on restore time.
As for point-in-time restores, this has been discussed several times in
the past. Instead of thinking in terms of how many versions to keep,
consider thinking in terms of how far back you wish to be able to recover
your data. For example, if you want to guarantee restorability up to 31
days ago, then set your VEREXISTS to NOLIMIT and RETEXTRA to 31 (and
VERDELETED and RETONLY depending on how you want to service deleted date).
Also make sure that the management class your directories will be bound to
has similar settings. This way, regardless of the number of times a
directory is changed, you can still restore it up to 31 days ago, with the
granularity being the frequency of TSM backups.
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.eyebm DOT com (change eye to i to reply)
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
DFrance <DFrance-TSM AT ATT DOT NET>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
10/26/2002 14:27
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Directories written in the wrong pool, although
using dirmc option
I share Mark's sentiments... on TWO points:
- if this was resolved, for both users in the discussion, let's share the
results;
- if DIRMC is no longer relevant, I'd sure like to know why! Win2K is
becoming ever more prevalent, and most data center customers go wild with
lots of permission groups (causing the ACL's to grow too large to be
contained in the TSM db -- I used to think!)
As far as I can tell, DIRMC is still a very significant issue, most
notably
with Win2K servers using typical data center permissions definitions. If
you create the disk pool and management class, and see it get populated
with
any data -- that seems pretty conclusive, to me.
The question that's left is whether a given restore will be just as fast
(NQR or classic) since dir's are now more readily backed up -- and, if
that's true, what about point-it-time restores that would get a mix of
dir's
restored, to match the state of a time further back than the most recent
backup?!?
Don France
Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant
Tivoli Storage Manager, WinNT/2K, AIX/Unix, OS/390
San Jose, Ca
(408) 257-3037
mailto:don_france AT att DOT net
Professional Association of Contract Employees
(P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
Mark D. Rodriguez
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 12:53 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Directories written in the wrong pool, although using dirmc
option
Andrew Raibeck wrote:
>Responded to offline.
>
>Andy Raibeck
>IBM Software Group
>Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
>Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
>Internet e-mail: storman AT us.eyebm DOT com (change eye to i to reply)
>
>The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
>The command line is your friend.
>"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
>
>
Andy,
I certainly appreciate you being on this list and I look at all of your
posts. I am not sure why you decided to take a couple of these off-line
I was interested in following this discussion, but it is certainly upto
you to decide.
Anyway on another note, the IBM/Tivoli education material has been
stating for sometime now that the DIRMC attribute is effectively
obsolete. The material states that all directory information is kept in
the DB now. The only reason I used DIRMC in the past was to store my
directories on a disk based storage pool to improve restore performance.
I have now real way of verifying this information. I guess I just
beleived the material, as such I no longer bother with this attribute
and I have not had any noticable problem. Can you please clarify this
for us?
--
Regards,
Mark D. Rodriguez
President MDR Consulting, Inc.
============================================================================
===
MDR Consulting
The very best in Technical Training and Consulting.
IBM Advanced Business Partner
SAIR Linux and GNU Authorized Center for Education
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert, CATE
AIX Support and Performance Tuning, RS6000 SP, TSM/ADSM and Linux
Red Hat Certified Engineer, RHCE
============================================================================
===
|
