Yep, and that's got me worried.
Fortunately, if I can figure out how to use it without recalling a couple
hundred tapes from the vault, I've got copypool tapes made before the dedup
(deduprequiresbackup=YES).
W
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Ray Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:17 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Another VE mystery - restoring from tape - but shouldn't
be
Out of curiosity, had the data been DeDuped when it was on the Disk, before it
was migrated to tape, and then moved back to disk?
We saw many problems with data corruption and damaged files when this was done
with a TSM server prior to 6.3.3.
Ray
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM> wrote:
> Hi Wanda,
>
> Identify one of the tapes being mounted from TAPEPOOL2, then do a
> QUERY CONTENT on it. See if there is anything for DC1. There has to be
> *something* even if we haven't yet put our finger on it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______
>
> Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead |
> storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
> IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
> Product support:
> http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivol
> i_Storage_Manager
>
> Online documentation:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Ti
> voli Documentation Central/page/Tivoli Storage Manager Product Wiki:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Ti
> voli
> +Storage+Manager/page/Home
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu> wrote on 2013-06-19
> 11:53:07:
>
>> From: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT ICFI DOT COM>
>> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu,
>> Date: 2013-06-19 11:55
>> Subject: Re: Another VE mystery - restoring from tape - but shouldn't
>> be Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
>>
>> Richard,
>> Here is the Q OCC result.
>> The Q OCC shows all the data for FSID 86 is in VMCTLMC (seq disk),
>> SLOWDEDUP (seq disk) or the COPYPOOL (tape COPY pool).
>>
>> But when the customer tries a restore, the tapes getting mounted are
>> from primary pool TAPEPOOL2.
>> How can a restore be calling for tapes in a pool where the filespace
>> has no data according to Q OCC?
>> I suggested they open a sev 1 with Tivoli. This can't be right.
>>
>>
>> tsm: HCG-TSM-SERVER>q occ dc1 86 nametype=fsid
>>
>> Node Name Type Filespace FSID Storage
>> Number of Physical Logical
>> Name Pool Name
>> Files Space Space
>>
>> Occupied Occupied
>>
>> (MB) (MB)
>> ---------- ---- ---------- ----- ----------
>> --------- --------- ---------
>> DC1 Bkup \VMFULL-H- 86 COPYPOOL
>> 8,928 99,057.72 99,062.73
>> WDDMZOCU-
>> LARX1
>> DC1 Bkup \VMFULL-H- 86 SLOWDEDUP
>> 4,464 - 98,733.95
>> WDDMZOCU-
>> LARX1
>> DC1 Bkup \VMFULL-H- 86 VMCTLMC
>> 4,464 315.14 315.14
>> WDDMZOCU-
>> LARX1
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prather, Wanda
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:03 AM
>> To: Richard Cowen
>> Subject: RE: Another VE mystery - restoring from tape - but shouldn't
>> be
>>
>>>> Did the MOVE NODEDATA result in a zillion new volumes (.BFS's) ?
>> No, we don't use scratch volumes in the seq disk pool
>>
>>
>>>> Can you get the activity log for the time the process(es) ran ?
>> Any chance you have query occupancy node=dcname filespace=victim1
>> stgpool=<tape,disk> before and after move?
>> If not, does the query for tape pool now show zero?
>>
>> Don't have them and right now I don't have access, but those are
>> great ideas, will ask the customer for them.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Wanda
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prather, Wanda [mailto:Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:35 AM
>> To: Richard Cowen
>> Subject: RE: Another VE mystery - restoring from tape - but shouldn't
>> be
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>
>>>> Did you get a "zillion" tape mounts during the MOVE NODEDATA?
>> Yes
>>
>>
>>>> Do you know it finished without errors?
>> Yes. And we ran another MOVE NODEDATA to verify there was no more
>> data to move for that filespace.
>>
>>>> How, exactly, did the data go from sequential fast disk ->
>> sequential slow disk - > tape ?
>> Ordinary migration, at different times, as the pools hit migration
> thresholds.
>>
>>>> I didn't think TSM would "migrate" more than one level, so maybe
>> the last step was using a MOVE command?
>> Yes, your migration hierarchy can have as many levels as you want, as
>> long as you don't try to go from a sequential pool back to a disk
>> (random) pool.
>>
>>>> What does a QUERY NODEDATA show for primary pools and copy pools?
>> Would not be informative, as we only moved some of the filespaces,
>> not all of them.
>>
>>>> Are you running aggressive reclamation on the tape pool?
>> No, and it's not collocated. Which is why we decided to move the
>> filespace back to the seq disk pool.
>> I don't think it's odd the data was too spread out to make the
>> restore from tape not work well.
>> What is odd is that all the data from one VM is supposedly in one
> filespace.
>> We moved that filespace back to disk with move nodedata fsid= But
>> still getting tape mounts on the restore.
>>
>> Thanks for your interest!
>>
>> Wanda
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
>> Of Prather, Wanda
>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:45 PM
>> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU<mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>> Subject: [ADSM-L] Another VE mystery - restoring from tape - but
> shouldn't be
>>
>> TSM 6.2.3
>> Backup done with TSM VE 6.4.0.0 and TSM client 6.4.0.0.
>>
>> VMCTLMC points to a dedicated sequential pool on fast disk. That
>> pool has no NEXTSTGPOOL defined.
>>
>> VMMC points backup data to a deduplicated sequential pool on fast
>> disk storage.
>> After the server dedups it there, it migrates to a slower NAS-based
>> deduplicated storage pool on disk.
>> When that slower pool fills, data migrates out to tape.
>> DEDUPREQUIRESBACKUP set to YES.
>> (No client-side dedup used.)
>>
>> We have done full VM restores through the plug-in and file-level
>> restores through the recovery agent in the past, including testing
>> restores from tape, with no problems.
>>
>> Now one of the customer's VM datastores has met with an unfortunate
>> accident in a dark alley.
>> We need to restore 7 full VM's.
>>
>> From the dsmc command line, restore vm victim1
>> datastore=newhealthyone starts up OK, but was calling for a zillion
>> tape mounts, and therefore was restoring at the rate of about 4GB per
>> 24 hours.
>>
>> So, we did MOVE NODEDATA DCNAME FILESPACE=victim1 to bring the data
>> from the tape back to the sequential disk pool.
>> Cranked up again, same result - requesting a zillion tape mounts.
>>
>> So riddle me this:
>> If the control information is on disk, and the filespace is back on
>> disk, what are the tape mounts going after?
>>
>> (FWIW, tried upgrading VE to 6.4.0.1 and data mover to 6.4.0.4, no
>> difference.) Signed, Confused by VE. Again.
>>
>> Wanda Prather | Senior Technical Specialist |
>> Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com< mailto:Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com> |
>> www.icfi.com<http://www.icfi.com> ICF International | 401 E. Pratt
>> St, Suite 2214, Baltimore, MD
>> 21202 | 410.539.1135 (o)
>>
|
