Hello Christian,
We have TSM Client 5.5.1 and TBMR 6.1.1 with TSM Server 5.5.X for quite long
time. Everything is working fine, but we are planning to use de-duplication
provided by TSM Server/Client 6.1. TBMR 6.1.1 is not compatible with TSM Client
6.1 and we need to upgrade the both TSM Client to 6.1.0 and TBMR to 6.2.1 as a
preparation for TSM Server upgrade to 6.1.2.
So I couldn't follow your suggestion about "query inclexcl" without TBMR.
SYSTEMSTATE has been increased after upgrading the both TSM Client and TBMR.
By the way, I am going to run "query inclexcl" from dsmc on both servers - with
old and upgraded to compare.
Any other idea?
Regards,
Grigori G. Solonovitch
Senior Technical Architect
Information Technology Bank of Kuwait and Middle East http://www.bkme.com
Phone: (+965) 2231-2274 Mobile: (+965) 99798073 E-Mail: G.Solonovitch AT bkme
DOT com
Please consider the environment before printing this Email
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Christian Svensson
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:38 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] SV: Differnce between TSM Client 5.5.1 and 6.1.0
Hi Grigori,
Compare "q inclexcl' command from a installation without TBMR and with TBMR.
If I don't remember wrong when I invented and develop TBMR, we needed to modify
the registry so TSM BA Client did backup more then default.
I haven't been part of development team since Oct 2008 so I can't say what's
really have been change the last couple of releases accept that TBMR 6.2.1 use
the 6.1 TSM Client to restore the data.
But the reason of you most upgrade the TSM BA Client to 6.1 to use TBMR is
something I wonder if you really need to do.
Who told you that and why?
Best Regards
Christian Svensson
Cell: +46-70-325 1577
E-mail: Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se
Skype: cristie.christian.svensson
________________________________________
Från: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] för Grigori
Solonovitch [G.Solonovitch AT BKME DOT COM]
Skickat: den 27 september 2009 08:18
Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Ämne: Differnce between TSM Client 5.5.1 and 6.1.0
Dear TSM Admins,
I have found one a little bit strange thing. I have Windows 2003 servers in
each branch with the same hardware and software.
We are using TSM Client to backup these servers for a long time. With TSM
Client 5.5.1 we have approximately the same status for all the branches.
We have started process to upgrade TSM Client to version 6.1.0 to be able to
use TBMR 6.2.1 for disaster recovery. After upgrading a few branches I have
found that much more space is required for server backups.
Number of files for SYSTEMSTATE and, of course, required amount of data has
been increased twice:
MALL360BR Bkup MALL360BR\SystemState\NULL\SystemState\SystemState 1
BRANCHES 47,464 4,919.71 4,919.71
RIGGABR Bkup RIGGABR\SystemState\NULL\SystemState\SystemState 1
BRANCHES 93,513 9,806.17 9,806.17
What could be a reason? Include/Exclude list in dsm.opt is exactly the same.
Thank you very much in advance.
Grigori G. Solonovitch
Senior Technical Architect
Information Technology Bank of Kuwait and Middle East http://www.bkme.com
Phone: (+965) 2231-2274 Mobile: (+965) 99798073 E-Mail: G.Solonovitch AT bkme
DOT com<mailto:G.Solonovitch AT bkme DOT com>
Please consider the environment before printing this Email
Please consider the environment before printing this Email.
________________________________
"This email message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain
confidential and proprietary information, intended only for the named
recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, or if you are not the
named recipient(s), please delete this email after notifying the sender
immediately. BKME cannot guarantee the integrity of this communication and
accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due
to viruses, any other defects, interception or unauthorized modification. The
information, views, opinions and comments of this message are those of the
individual and not necessarily endorsed by BKME."
|