ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] FW: query occ vs select from occupancy

2012-11-16 07:22:17
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] FW: query occ vs select from occupancy
From: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:18:19 -0500
I suspect this:

http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC81110

Best regards,

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development
Level 3 Team Lead
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page:
http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu> wrote on 2012-11-16
04:51:00:

> From: Paul van Dongen <Paul.vanDongen AT VANCIS DOT NL>
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu,
> Date: 2012-11-16 04:53
> Subject: FW: query occ vs select from occupancy
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
>
> Hi,
>
> Before someone tells me that used two different nodes, this was the
> result of a wrong replace action. I can assure that both commands
> were directed to the same node name
>
> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
>
>
> Paul van Dongen
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul van Dongen
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 10:18
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] query occ vs select from occupancy
>
> Hi TSM people,
>
> I saw some uncommon output from a Q OCC command for a large node
> this morning and I would like to ask if any of you saw this before:
>
> Server is 5.5.5.2 on AIX.
>
> Query occupancy gives me:
>
> tsm:XXXX>q occ X0000_FSX
>
> Node Name      Type     Filespace       FSID     Storage
> Number of      Physical       Logical
>                         Name                     Pool Name
> Files         Space         Space
>
> Occupied      Occupied
>
> (MB)          (MB)
> ----------     ----     ----------     -----     ----------
> ---------     ---------     ---------
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /homepool          1     FS-COPY        21,
> 843,78     3,968,123     3,888,302
>
> 8           .35           .25
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /homepool          1     FS-DISK
> 7,181     483,413.1     483,413.1
>
> 2             2
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /homepool          1     FS-TAPE        21,
> 849,19     4,234,593     4,046,654
>
> 8           .39           .60
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /                  2     FS-COPY
> 186,630     18,717.17     16,554.75
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /                  2     FS-TAPE
> 186,732     21,191.67     16,697.96
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /boot              3     FS-COPY
> 234         50.10         49.97
> X0000_FS8      Bkup     /boot              3     FS-TAPE
> 234         78.27         49.97
>
> So I conclude that my /homepool filesystem uses about 4TB logical
> storage in TSM
>
> And a SELECT gives something else:
>
> tsm: XXXX>select
> NODE_NAME,FILESPACE_NAME,STGPOOL_NAME,NUM_FILES,LOGICAL_MB from
> occupancy where node_name='X0000_FSX'
>
> NODE_NAME              FILESPACE_NAME         STGPOOL_NAME
> NUM_FILES           LOGICAL_MB
> ------------------     ------------------     ------------------
> -----------     ----------------
> X0000_FSX              /homepool              FS-COPY
> 21843788          46837975.20
> X0000_FSX              /homepool              FS-DISK
> 7181            483413.11
> X0000_FSX              /homepool              FS-TAPE
> 21849198          46996327.55
> X0000_FSX              /                      FS-COPY
> 186630             16554.74
> X0000_FSX              /                      FS-TAPE
> 186732             16697.95
> X0000_FSX              /boot                  FS-COPY
> 234                49.96
> X0000_FSX              /boot                  FS-TAPE
> 234                49.96
>
> And now I get 40+TB instead of 4?
>
> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
>
>
> Paul van Dongen
>
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>