On 19/08, Loon, EJ van - SPLXM wrote:
> I was hoping to be able to solve it myself, since the server is running
> an unsupported TSM level (5.3.4.0), so I cannot open a PMR.
> Thanks anyway.
> Kind regards,
> Eric van Loon
> KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> km
> Sent: dinsdag 18 augustus 2009 18:34
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Dealloc prohibited - transaction failed
>
> On 18/08, Loon, EJ van - SPLXM wrote:
> > Hi TSM-ers!
> > I have two nodes which I cannot delete. When I issue a DELETE
> FILESPACE
> > * for one of these node, I see the following errors in the log:
> >
> > ANR0984I Process 59041 for DELETE FILESPACE started in the BACKGROUND
> at
> > 15:30:40.
> > ANR0800I DELETE FILESPACE * for node KL10143J started as process
> 59041.
> > ANR0802I DELETE FILESPACE * (backup/archive data) for node KL10143J
> > started.
> > ANR9999D ssalloc.c(1532): ThreadId <51> Dealloc prohibited -
> transaction
> > failed.
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51> issued message 9999 from:
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100017f78 outDiagf
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x000000010032d480 ssDealloc
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100365534 AfDeallocSegments
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100365e68 AfDeleteBitfileFromPool
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003663c8 AfDestroyAll
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003608a4 bfDestroy
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001001816fc ImDeleteBitfile
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x000000010018a510 imDeleteObject
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d3800 DeleteBackups
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d4c80 imFSDeletionThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001000063c8 StartThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x090000000053650c _pthread_body
> > ANR9999D imutil.c(7001): ThreadId <51> unexpected rc=87 from bfDestroy
> > for objId=0.1066965103
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51> issued message 9999 from:
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100017f78 outDiagf
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100181740 ImDeleteBitfile
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x000000010018a510 imDeleteObject
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d3800 DeleteBackups
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d4c80 imFSDeletionThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001000063c8 StartThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x090000000053650c _pthread_body
> > ANR9999D imfsdel.c(1847): ThreadId <51> IM not able to delete object
> > 0.1066965103, rc: 19
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51> issued message 9999 from:
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x0000000100017f78 outDiagf
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d3840 DeleteBackups
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001003d4c80 imFSDeletionThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x00000001000063c8 StartThread
> > ANR9999D ThreadId <51>  0x090000000053650c _pthread_body
> > ANR0987I Process 59041 for DELETE FILESPACE running in the BACKGROUND
> > processed 25 items with a completion state of FAILURE at 15:30:40.
> >
> > I cannot find both the return codes 19 and 78 in the list of known
> > return codes for TSM...
> > It's reproducible. Anybody seen this before?
> > Thank you very much for any reply in advance!
> > Kind regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> >
>
> Looks like an IBM support case, probably a missing object or something.
>
> -km

OK, then an AUDIT DB would probably fix the problem, but it needs
several hours to run which will incur downtime for the TSM server. But
this is the safe choice for fixing TSM DB problems.


Or, if you feel adventurous and dont really have anything to lose, you
could try to tracing the server while deleting the filespace.

trace disable *
trace enable ss bf af
trace begin /tmp/trace.out

delete filespace KL10143J *

trace flush
trace end

And then check the trace.out if you find anything that might be fixable
by you.

To see which file is causing the problem (could take a while):
SELECT ll_name, hl_name FROM backups WHERE object_id = 1066965103

And this will show you the bitfile object and all information on the
sub-bitfile object:
show bfo 0 1066965103

Then you could try to delete the offending object with:
delete object 1066965103

BUT, directly doing stuff with the DB is not really a good idea and
totally unsupported so you are on your own here. :)


-km