Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold

2013-05-08 09:51:08
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM RFE regarding Litigation Hold
From: "Vandeventer, Harold [BS]" <Harold.Vandeventer AT KS DOT GOV>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:48:50 +0000
I found a shortcut on my RFE to share with anyone as a quick way to find it.

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
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>
> 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
> 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:
> 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>