Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
2013-05-08 09:51:08
I found a shortcut on my RFE to share with anyone as a quick way to find it.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=33395
The link will take you through the DeveloperWorks sign-in process; if you don't
have a sign-in, see the links on the page to obtain one.
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Skylar Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:46 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
Unfortunately we've had expiration holds for tens of terabytes of data, so we
haven't been able to use this approach.
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine
On 05/07/13 14:39, Richard Rhodes wrote:
> Our approach has been to export/import the node to another TSM
> instance under a different node name with a suffix or prefix that indicated
> the
> hold. THe mgt class is set to no-expire. We stop expiration until this
> copy is made. This approach has lets the node be processed as usual,
> and the copy can sit for as long as needed.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Vandeventer, Harold [BS]" <Harold.Vandeventer AT KS DOT GOV>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Date: 05/07/2013 03:36 PM
> Subject: Re: TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
>
>
> Great ideas Paul.... I'm preparing to build the alternate server
> without expiration approach as soon as I can scare up some resources.
>
> I'll look at the alternate Domain approach also.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Paul Zarnowski
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:54 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
>
> We deal with a variety of types of litigation hold here, as well.
> What you can do now, easily, is to setup a parallel policy domain
> (i.e.,
> LITHOLD) that has all the same management classes, but different
> retention policy (i.e., retain forever). Then, to avoid expiration
> you just have to do this:
>
> UPDATE NODE nodename DOMAIN=LITHOLD
>
> This works if you have all the same management classes defined in
> LITHOLD that you had defined in the original domain. You can move the
> node back and forth between domains as needed. If LITHOLD is missing
> a management class, then retention would be controlled by the "grace period"
> definitions of the domain - something you'll probably want to avoid.
>
> No changes needed on the client side since you're not changing
> management class names, just their attributes.
>
> If you have associated a schedule with the node, then you'll need to
> have copies of the schedules in LITHOLD and re-associate the node with
> the schedule in the LITHOLD domain (which can be defined the same).
>
> We also deal with other types of litigation holds that require is to
> take a snapshot of the data. For this, we simply export (a copy of)
> the node to another TSM server instance where expiration does not run
> or has no effect.
>
> ..Paul
>
>
> At 05:05 PM 5/3/2013, Vandeventer, Harold [BS] wrote:
>> To all...
>> I created an RFE to affect File Spaces and Expiration. The feature
>> would
> cause expiration processing to be skipped for a file space that has
> been selected.
>>
>> It's RFE ID 33395 if you care to review and vote.
>>
>> Briefly, the idea is to immediately respond to a situation in which
>> we
> cannot allow Expiration Processing to delete information that would
> otherwise be deleted. This would be in response to a "Litigation Hold"
> demand from a legal issue at hand. I've had three LitHold events in
> the past 24 months; they're not much fun and I'm not in the court
> room, just the TSM Server Admin.
>>
>> Allowing a "LitigationHold=Yes" would avoid expiration on the File Space.
>>
>> When the court case is lifted, simply revert to ""LitigationHold=No".
>> The
> next Expiration process would then begin the delete process as is normal.
>>
>> The feature would avoid the complexity of assigning a "no expire"
> management class to the node and trying to later revert to a more
> typical class.
>>
>> Please take a look at the RFE, and cast a vote if you feel it's a
> valuable feature.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Harold Vandeventer
>> Systems Programmer
>> State of Kansas - Office of Information Technology Services STE 751-S
>> 910 SW Jackson
>> (785) 296-0631
>>
>>
>> [Confidentiality notice:]
>> *********************************************************************
>> ** This e-mail message, including attachments, if any, is intended
>> for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>> confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
>> use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original
>> message, including all copies, Thank you.
>> *********************************************************************
>> **
>
>
> --
> Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757
> Manager of Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521
> IT at Cornell / Infrastructure Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu
> 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
>
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
Message not available
Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Prather, Wanda
Message not availableRe: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Paul Zarnowski
Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Vandeventer, Harold [BS]
Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Vandeventer, Harold [BS]
Message not availableRe: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Paul Zarnowski
Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold, Vandeventer, Harold [BS]
|
|
|