Interesting technote.
First the DIRMC is not needed.
"Therefore the original reason to cache directories on disk no longer
applies."
Then it is useful after all.
"Nevertheless, the DIRMC option is still useful. If you do not specify this
option to associate a management class with directories, the client, during
backup, uses the management class in the active policy set of your policy
domain with the longest retention period, which could point to a storage
pool on tape. This might result in unwanted mount requests during
backup/restore."
But DIRMC can cause problems with backups.
"Having the DIRMC point to a disk storage pool separate from the backup
objects might cause the symptom as described with technote swg21247892
(Unexpected high number of EndTxn processing during back up, see link
section below)"
This is fun!
Regards,
Hans Chr.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Steven Langdale <steven.langdale AT gmail DOT
com>
wrote:
>
> The point of that technote is that you do not need DIRMC anymore.
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:17 Hans Christian Riksheim <bullhcr AT gmail DOT com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Nick.
> >
> > Of course this was the one TSM server where I forgot to create the DIRMC
> > diskpool and that explains the restore behavior.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hans Chr.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Nick Marouf <marouf AT gmail DOT com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This could be normal if TSM is trying to recreate all the directory
> > > structures. It creates this first, before restoring actual data.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With the newer versions of TSM, using a directory class management
> > (DIRMC)
> > > shouldn’t be necessary, since ACL information is applied at a later
> point
> > > in time. However with that said, I’ve seen fileservers with millions of
> > > directory structures that could be spread across many tapes, or even
> one
> > > tape.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You may want to open a ticket with support for
> > > confirmation, but the symptoms you are reporting are similar to a
> > problem I
> > > had a while back.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See this technote with a bit more background.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21669468
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Hans Christian Riksheim <
> > > bullhcr AT gmail DOT com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am doing a file system restore. The number of volumes for this node
> > is
> > > 35
> > > > and is collocated by filespace.
> > > >
> > > > In the last 24 hours there has been 700 tape mounts for this restore
> > > > session. One volume has been mounted 346 times. Total amount restored
> > is
> > > > about 200 GB.
> > > >
> > > > q ses f=d tells me that this is a NoQueryRestore.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is this to be expected?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Hans Chr.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
