ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] query occupancy shows DELETED filespaces

2016-06-21 10:57:45
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] query occupancy shows DELETED filespaces
From: Stefan Folkerts <stefan.folkerts AT GMAIL DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:56:19 +0200
reuse delay is set to 3 days that have long since past (more than a week
ago)
expire inventory runs every day and completes without problems


On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Ehresman <
david.ehresman AT louisville DOT edu> wrote:

> What is the REUSE parm set at for the storagepools in question?  My
> observation is that at TSM 7.1.5.1 & 2, the space shows as DELETED until
> the REUSE period is up and expiration has run.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Stefan Folkerts
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:25 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] query occupancy shows DELETED filespaces
>
> At a customer of mine query occupancy shows DELETED filespaces, hundreds of
> them.
>
> I read this:
>
> "If you delete a file space in a deduplicated storage pool, the file space
> name DELETED is displayed in the output of the QUERY OCCUPANCY command
> *until
> all deduplication dependencies are removed.*"
>
> from here
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__&d=AwIBaQ&c=SgMrq23dbjbGX6e0ZsSHgEZX6A4IAf1SO3AJ2bNrHlk&r=dOGCMY197NTNH1k_wcsrWS3_fxedKW4rpKJ8cHCD2L8&m=BugyxVJBywaHSMwX0E2BZvOsFdo93kQ9-OrgkfQVUTc&s=6BnrPoLTle6fRkvZtWuULDwYDS-ffudoSemI1wbN35Y&e=
>
> www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7_7.1.4/srv.reference/r_cmd_filespace_delete.html
>
> And my question is, how can I see where this process is at?
>
> The customer renamed 200+ VM's and all the old filespaces are being removed
> from Spectrum Protect but seem stuck in this DELETED state, it seems like
> all of them to be honest.
>
> show dedupdeleteinfo show's nothing, everything is idle there.
>
> I don't know where else too look. It seems like the data is not released
> because the tape utilisation has not dropped, I did not expect much to
> happen on disk (deduplication) but I did expect a big drop on tape that has
> not occurred.
>
> Has anybody here seen anything like this before?
>
> Regards,
>     Stefan
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>