|
We run this dailyexperience with 9 track tape.
STRMNTBRM RMVMEDI(*REUSE) PRTEXPMED(*NO) PRTVSNRPT(*NO) PRTBKUACT(*NO)
PRTRCYRPT(*RCYANL *SAVEXCP)
I see we're missing the
RgzBrmDb(*Yes)
From a DSPOBJD to an output file:SELECT ODLBNM, ODOBNM, ODOBTP, ODOBAT, ODOBSZ FROM routines/dskdt
where odlbnm='QUSRBRM'
ORDER BY odobsz desc
Library Object Object Object Object
Type Attribute Size
QUSRBRM QA1ALI2 *FILE PF 3,635,482,624
QUSRBRM QA1AOD *FILE PF 1,972,502,528
QUSRBRM QA1ADI2 *FILE PF 223,727,616
QUSRBRM QA1A5OD *FILE LF 177,262,592
QUSRBRM QA1ANET2 *FILE PF 173,084,672
...
Deleted
Member Size Records Records
QA1ALI2 3635441664 2615266 597480
QA1AOD 1972465664 2130765 370724
QA1ADI2 223686656 181377 0
QA1ANET2 173064192 0 78184
I can see where that reorg can make a difference. Any drawback to
doing it daily?
Rob Berendt
-- IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept
1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive Garrett, IN 46738 Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com From: "Terry
Nonamaker" <TNonamaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Midrange Systems
Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Date: 09/13/2012
12:16 PM Subject: RE: BRMS suddenly requires second tape? - please
read Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx Possibly the expired
idea is not the appropriate thought ....but the following should be
run from time to time ....we run it once a week ....you would be
surprised what a difference it can make ....as we had a situation
similar to this when we went to v6r1 StrMntBrm RgzBrmDb(*Yes) Right
now, I can't remember what it was ......but a policy parameter changed
defaults on v6r1 and this was part of it Although the physical tapes
actually expire ....the data containing that info in QUSRBRM does not
get cleared out Try this, I bet it helps TN -----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Oberholtzer
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:28 AM To: Midrange Systems
Technical Discussion Subject: Re: BRMS suddenly requires second tape?
Interesting thought Terry but I can't think of any process in BRMS
maintenance that might cause an extra tape mount. If one file on the
tape is still current (not expired) then BRMS will not expire the tape
volume either. Still, running BRMS maintenance every day is still a
best practice. Jim Oberholtzer Chief Technical Architect Agile
Technology Architects On 9/13/2012 7:12 AM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
past.BRMS tells you what tapes to mount. It's not going to tell you to
mount a tape if the tape has unexpired files on it. For example,
if I use BRMS to back up my daily data and put 14 days retention
on it, and my quarterly data and put 400 days retention on it,
BRMS won't tell me to call Iron Mountain and ask for those tapes
until those days are
I suppose you could have done something outside of BRMS, like
stored a file on there with permanent retention.
Rob Berendt
-- IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept
1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive Garrett, IN 46738 Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755http://www.dekko.com From: "Terry
Nonamaker"<TNonamaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Midrange Systems
Technical Discussion'"<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Date: 09/12/2012
05:43 PM Subject: RE: BRMS suddenly requires second tape? Sent by:
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx I have not read all the other
responses But, are you sure the tapes are being properly expired
thru BRMS maintenance ......has anything, however subtle, changed
in your normal process that this might not run? Just a thought
Terry Nonamaker -----Original Message-----
From:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McKee Sent:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:14 PM To: Midrange Systems
Technical Discussion Subject: Re: BRMS suddenly requires second
tape? I know you esponded that it was not likely. I am wondering
what using the tape less might do to accumulating temporary write
errors. Wouldn't the tape still wear out, even if it took a lot
longer to do so? I was just tossing that out from my ancient
separateWatching the drive toss several feet for a temporary write was
interesting to watch. Running a PRTERRLOG and checking the general
errors and errors specific to tapes from the past few days still
might show something, wouldn't it? I have no knowledge of BRMS,
so, again, this goes back to old experience. John McKee On Wed,
Sep 12, 2012 at
3:42 PM, Gerald Kern<jp2558@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "I'm not a BRMS expert but to me having that QUSRBRM on a
3restore."> tape would be a big advantage if you had to do a full system
prohibitive.>
> Agreed Larry - but the cost for tapes just for that would be
>
> "Could tape have temporary write errors? I'm wondering if bad
> areas are being skipped."
>
> Not likely John since we use different tapes each day.
>
> " I print this to a PDF file on a daily basis and store it on
pdf's> servers in multiple countries."
>
> Whoa Rob - I thought I was cool just by having my reports in
IBM> in gmail and yahoo...;) But three countries = uber cool!
>
> --
> Thanks, Jerry
>
> Gerald Kern - Information Technology Programming Supervisor
----> Certified RPG IV Developer Lotus Notes/Domino Administrator
The > Toledo Clinic, Inc.
> 4235 Secor Road
> Toledo, OH 43623
> Phone 419-479-5535
> --
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
