Hi Thomas,
Thank you for your insight. RETONLY was 60 days during the absolute backups. We 
just reduced it to 30 days this morning when we saw unexpected files on the 
VTL. Perhaps tomorrow the VTL will look better.

Best wishes,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University






On 1/22/16, 13:11, "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Thomas Denier" <ADSM-L 
AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on behalf of Thomas.Denier AT JEFFERSON DOT EDU> wrote:

>Is RETONLY also set to 30 days? If RETONLY is longer than 30 days, backup 
>copies some files deleted before the absolute backups would be retained for 
>more than 30 days after the absolute backups.
>
>Thomas Denier
>Thomas Jefferson University
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
>Of Arbogast, Warren K
>
>We have implemented directory container pools in TSM version 7.1.4 and are 
>happy with it.  All new backups are written to the DEDUP pool, and old backups 
>are being migrated from the VTL to the DEDUP pool through a process of 
>replicating existing nodes' files to a DEDUP pool on a target server,  then 
>replicating them back to the DEDUP pool on the source server. That process 
>works well.
>
>There is an urgency to empty the storage previously used on the VTL so it can 
>be re-purposed. To hurry the migration to the DEDUP pool along we devised a 
>strategy of running FULL backups (COPY MODE: ABSOLUTE) on certain small 
>servers in policy domains whose destination was the DEDUP pool. That would 
>promote all of a node’s previous backups on the VTL to Inactive status. And, 
>since the pertinent RETAIN EXTRA VERSIONS setting was ’30’, we expected within 
>30 days all inactive versions would be expired and removed from the VTL.
>
>It’s 30 days later, and the strategy did not work perfectly. There are 
>thousands of files remaining on the VTL for nodes which had  a COPY MODE: 
>ABSOLUTE backup.
>
>What am I misunderstanding about COPY MODE: ABSOLUTE?  I had understood it 
>would force a 100% full backup, with no mitigation by include and exclude  
>statements. Apparently that’s not the case. Could someone clarify how it works?
>
>The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and 
>confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person named 
>above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is 
>strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
>sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for emergent 
>or urgent health care matters.
>