ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Pointing FlashCopyManager.exe at a custom options file

2014-02-19 12:27:36
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Pointing FlashCopyManager.exe at a custom options file
From: Del Hoobler <hoobler AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:34:13 -0500
Hi Neil,

Please look at the archives of this list from last week.
This exact discussion was raised.
Here is the discussion thread:

   http://adsm.org/lists/html/ADSM-L/2014-02/msg00019.html

I mentioned in that thread that a fix for this is targeted
for the DP/SQL 7.1.0.1 iFix. Current estimate is April.

Thank you,

Del

----------------------------------------------------

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu> wrote on 02/19/2014
10:58:56 AM:

> From: Neil Schofield <neil.schofield AT YORKSHIREWATER.CO DOT UK>
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu,
> Date: 02/19/2014 11:22 AM
> Subject: Pointing FlashCopyManager.exe at a custom options file
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
>
> I've got something of a revolt on my hands from our SQL DBAs when it
comes
> to the new Flash Copy Manager interface for TDP for SQL. Fundamentally,
> their objections arise from an inability to specify the name of a custom
> options file when launching the console.
>
> Previously, when managing multiple SQL Server instances in a Failover
> Cluster the DBAs would have numerous shortcuts to TDPSQL.EXE with each
> using the /TSMOPTFILE switch (along with /SQLSERVER ) to specify a
> different options file on a shared disk. Unfortunately
> FLASHCOPYMANAGER.EXE doesn't seem to allow the options file to be
> specified in this way.
>
> IBM offer some advice to work around this limitation but this seems to
> boil down to reverting to using the now deprecated TDPSQL.EXE or a
rather
> kludgy series of scripts to overwrite the default copy of the options
file
> with a custom version prior to launching the console:
> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21597023
>
> Neither of these is especially attractive and I wondered if anyone else
> had a better way of coping with this scenario? The technote above makes
> reference to reviewing this capability for future releases but given
this
> is now a year old and we've seen v7.1 arrive in the mean time, I'm
> guessing they don't see it as a priority.
>
> Regards
> Neil Schofield