Hi Richard,
which version of TSM are you running? In some version (6.3 ???) of TSM the SCSI
reservation method changed. SO if you mix various levels, you might find
yourself in trouble, of if you don't set the SCSI reservation key correctly.
Also, there is a bug in TSM 5.5.2 and lower for NDMP where the NAS filer might
report SCSI reservation conflicts because TSM doesn't track the NDMP session
properly.
Also, I've seen SCSI reservation conflicts reported when the server2server
communication from (IIRC) the LM to the LC doesn't work. Check if you can route
commands in both directions properly...
On 27 okt. 2011, at 14:58, Richard Rhodes wrote:
> (I had the values for commtimeout and idletimeout values backwards! fixed
> below)
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> In working with support on a couple issues we've realized that we have
> different
> values for commtimeout, idletimeout, and resource timeout.
>
> We have: 2 dedicated library manager instances
> 7 tsm instances for BA client file backups
> 2 tsm instances for BIG LanFree Oracle backups (tdpo/lanfree)
> (db's > 1TB)
> (all the big lanfree nodes are in these instances
> 32 Nodes with tdpo/lanfree setups
>
> All instances share the same tape drives via the dedicated library
> managers.
>
> The dedicated library managers, TSM instances for big lanfree nodes,
> and the storage agents are all defined with the following parms:
> commtimeout 240 (fixed)
> idletimeout 14400 (fixed)
> resourcetimeout 60
>
> The seven tsm instances for normal BA client backups have the following
> parms:
> (These tsm servers include the problem-child Windows nodes with millions
> of small files.)
> commtimeout 150 (fixed)
> idletimeout 3600 (fixed)
> resourcetimeout 60
>
>
> IBM support indicated that ALL instances in this environment should use
> the same values
> for these parms. If they are not the same, then it can be a cause for one
> of the problems we are fighting (scsi reservation errors).
> I'm not sure if the values above are good/bad/ugly, or, what values
> should be used. I'm not finding many specific recommendations.
>
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
> agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
> and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
> the original message.
--
Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards,
Remco Post
r.post AT plcs DOT nl
+31 6 248 21 622
|
