RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time -- MIDRANGE-L

Adrienne,

One thing to consider is that if you backup file by file, you will need to 
restore file by file.  Basically you will be issuing a series of SAVOBJ 
commands. As a result you will have to issue an RSTOBJ command for each 
SAVOBJ  command you used to save your data.


Steven Morrison
Fidelity Express 
903-885-1283  ext. 479



"Adrienne McConnon" <Adrienne.McConnon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/13/2007 09:58 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time






Joe/Jerry,

Are you suggesting we backup one library or groups of libraries at a
time and push it to the DR system? 

If we're going to write our own backup system I can transfer one SAVF
file using FTP without any additional requirements.

Our desire is to back up to tape piece meal - file by file or lib by lib
using only tape and virtual tape - but it is sounding like this will not
be feasible. 

It is beginning to sound like we will have to go by Joe's suggestion of
FTPing save files consisting of groups of files.  This was actually one
of the backup scenarios we were considering, but we were hoping that
vitual tape back up would have been more flexible.

I thank you Joe and Jerry for your suggestions and welcome any
additional comments. 

Have a great day!

Adrienne McConnon


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:56 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 6, Issue 556

Send MIDRANGE-L mailing list submissions to
                 midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
                 http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                 midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
                 midrange-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of MIDRANGE-L digest..."


*** NOTE: When replying to this digest message, PLEASE remove all text
unrelated to your reply and change the subject line so it is meaningful.

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time (Joe Pluta)
   2. Re: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out (Daniel Ang)
   3. RE: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out
      (Haase, Justin C.)
   4. Re: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time (Jerry Adams)
   5. RE: Zebra 110xi - as a print device (George Kinney)
   6. RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time
      (Jones, John (US))
   7. RE: Zebra 110xi - as a print device (Jeff Crosby)


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

message: 1
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:20:15 -0500
from: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time

From: Adrienne McConnon

Evan,

I thank you for your respnse, and will try to clarify the issues

below.

We appreciate all of your patience with my attempts to reiterate this 
problem we are having.

1.  We have 2 iSeries - both on V5R4. One is local, one remote.  Also 
we have a remote tape drive.

2. We must backup an iSeries in Timbuktu. That system does NOT have 
enough disk space to backup all user data to virtual tape.

3. We can create a tape in Timbuktu but we can't pick it up or have it

delivered.

4. We thought we might backup Timbuktu to a physical tape and then 
copy that Timbuktu physical tape one file at a time to a small virtual

tape that could be sent to a backup iSeries that is offsite from

Timbuktu.


5.  Our stumbling blocks are that we are short on disk space - and 
approval to purchase additional will not occur at theis time.  We have

enough for production purposes only.

6.  Our remote iSeries and tape drive are virtually non-accessible.


Adrienne, the "primary purpose" of a virtual tape is to break up the two
parts of the save process: grabbing an image of the data and then saving
that data to tape.  Typically with a SAVxxx operation, these steps occur
at the same time.  A virtual tape allows you to perform normal save
procedures as quickly as possible and then copy that data to tape
asynchronously.

This really isn't what you are looking for.  To me, it seems that you
want to simply transfer these files from the remote machine to the local
machine and back them up locally.

I would consider performing a save to a save file for small groups of
files and then transmitting that save file via FTP to the local machine.
Once you've done that, save the save file to a tape drive locally.  Then
signal the remote machine to save the next group of files, and so on.

Joe




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

message: 2
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:30:56 +0800
from: "Daniel Ang" <igsang@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out

Hi Pete:

I was told that running straspbal *usage will get the disk usage
statistic from trcaspbal and spread the data/usage evenly, and if
straspbal is not run beforehand it will get the last available statistic
which would not be accurate.

Daniel

On 3/13/07, Pete Massiello <pmassiello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I usually just run STRASPBAL *CAPACITY and never run the TRCASPBAL at

all.

It always balances the disks 100% perfectly.  I can't see why you 
would need to run TRCASPBAL for capacity, but I could for *USAGE.

Pete

---------------------------- Original Message 
----------------------------
Subject: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out
From:    "Daniel Ang" <igsang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:    Tue, March 13, 2007 5:25 am
To:      Midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Hello Guys,

I've a client with i520, whose wrkdsksts shows different disk 
capacity usage for different disk. i know i can balance it out using

TRCASPBAL and

follow

by STRASPBAL *usage.

1) I would like to know what is the normal causes of disk imbalance?

the system has not IPL since 3 months. and cannot afford any IPL.
2) how long do i need to tun trcaspbal? is it resource hungry? will 
it slow down my production services?

thanks in advance

regards,
igsang
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) 
mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To 
subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please 
take a moment to review the archives at 
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take 
a moment to review the archives at 
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



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

message: 3
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:38:43 -0500
from: "Haase, Justin C." <justin.haase@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out

Are you sure you're not thinking different capacity based on RAID
striping?  That's normal.  For example, units 14, 15, 20, 25.  However,
some things cannot be balanced, such as journal receivers, and if
there's a bunch of them on one or two disks, they'll stay right where
they are and potentially skew the numbers (like the second set of disks
below the first list - that's a separate ASP on another system.  Doing a
STRASPBAL on it does nothing - IBM says normal)

               Size    % 
Unit  Type      (M)  Used
  14  4326    26373   8.0
  15  4326    26373   8.0
  16  4326    30769   8.0
  17  4326    30769   8.0
  18  4326    30769   8.1
  19  4326    30769   8.1
  20  4326    26373   8.0
  21  4326    30769   8.0
  22  4326    30769   8.0
  23  4326    30769   8.0
  24  4326    30769   8.1
  25  4326    26373   8.0
  26  4326    30769   8.0


 61  6714  17548   3.0 
 62  6714  17548   2.9 
 63  6714  13161   4.1 
 64  6714  13161   4.1 
 65  6714  13161    .0 
 66  6714  13161    .0

Justin C. Haase
Solution Manager - Technical Services
Kingland Systems Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Ang
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:31 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out

Hi Pete:

I was told that running straspbal *usage will get the disk usage
statistic from trcaspbal and spread the data/usage evenly, and if
straspbal is not run beforehand it will get the last available statistic
which would not be accurate.

Daniel

On 3/13/07, Pete Massiello <pmassiello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I usually just run STRASPBAL *CAPACITY and never run the TRCASPBAL at

all.

It always balances the disks 100% perfectly.  I can't see why you

would

need to run TRCASPBAL for capacity, but I could for *USAGE.

Pete

---------------------------- Original Message

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

Subject: wrkdsksts, disk utilization not balanced out
From:    "Daniel Ang" <igsang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:    Tue, March 13, 2007 5:25 am
To:      Midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Hello Guys,

I've a client with i520, whose wrkdsksts shows different disk

capacity

usage
for different disk. i know i can balance it out using TRCASPBAL and

follow

by STRASPBAL *usage.

1) I would like to know what is the normal causes of disk imbalance?

the

system has not IPL since 3 months. and cannot afford any IPL.
2) how long do i need to tun trcaspbal? is it resource hungry? will

it

slow
down my production services?

thanks in advance

regards,
igsang
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)

mailing

list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please 
take a moment to review the archives at 
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take 
a moment to review the archives at 
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail communication, including
attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential, and may be legally privileged.  If
you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this
communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact
and delete the copy you received.  In addition, retention,
dissemination, distribution, copying, or otherwise use of the
information contained in this communication is strictly prohibited.
Thank you.



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

message: 4
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:46:31 -0600
from: Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time

Joe,

I would normally agree if for no other reason than that's the way I meet

the objective here.


If Adrienne is really that strapped for disk space, it might not be 
practical.  A save file does some compression but darn little.  Breaking

it down into manageable (small) groups of files, as you suggest, might 
be a solution.


Another one that I have looked at, but not explored much beyond reading 
about it, is the SAVRSTOBJ command.  It does require OptiConnect be 
installed on both systems, but that's a freebie (well, an i5/OS optional

component, anyway).  According to the documentation, it can be used to 
save an object, a group of objects, or even an entire library and push 
that to the same or a different library on the target machine.  I have 
not, however, read anything about intermediate disk storage or even if 
there is any used.  If there is no (or little) temporary disk storage 
required, this might be the way to go in this case.


There is a manual on OptiConnect: SC41-5414-xx.


                 * Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i5/iSeries Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
                 615.995.7024
fax
                 615.995.1201
email
                 jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Joe Pluta wrote:

From: Adrienne McConnon

Evan,

I thank you for your respnse, and will try to clarify the issues

below.

We appreciate all of your patience with my attempts to reiterate this
problem we are having.

1.  We have 2 iSeries - both on V5R4. One is local, one remote.  Also

we

have a remote tape drive.

2. We must backup an iSeries in Timbuktu. That system does NOT have
enough disk space to backup all user data to virtual tape.

3. We can create a tape in Timbuktu but we can't pick it up or have

it

delivered.

4. We thought we might backup Timbuktu to a physical tape and then

copy

that Timbuktu physical tape one file at a time to a small virtual

tape

that could be sent to a backup iSeries that is offsite from Timbuktu.

5.  Our stumbling blocks are that we are short on disk space - and
approval to purchase additional will not occur at theis time.  We

have

enough for production purposes only.

6.  Our remote iSeries and tape drive are virtually non-accessible.


Adrienne, the "primary purpose" of a virtual tape is to break up the

two

parts of the save process: grabbing an image of the data and then

saving

that data to tape.  Typically with a SAVxxx operation, these steps

occur at

the same time.  A virtual tape allows you to perform normal save

procedures

as quickly as possible and then copy that data to tape asynchronously.

This really isn't what you are looking for.  To me, it seems that you

want

to simply transfer these files from the remote machine to the local

machine

and back them up locally.

I would consider performing a save to a save file for small groups of

files

and then transmitting that save file via FTP to the local machine.

Once

you've done that, save the save file to a tape drive locally.  Then

signal

the remote machine to save the next group of files, and so on.

Joe




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

message: 5
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:50:58 -0500
from: "George Kinney" <GKinney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Zebra 110xi - as a print device

from: "Jeff Crosby" <jlcrosby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It's plain text.  Just a normal spool file, 40 characters wide.


But does it contain ZPL? 

Something like: 
~CC?
?XA
?LH0,0
?FO50,50
?A0,50,50
?FDThis is a test?FS
?XZ

If it doesn't, then you're getting exactly the result you should be
getting. The printer is ignoring data that isn't ZPL commands.



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

message: 6
date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:53:16 -0500
from: "Jones, John \(US\)" <John.Jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: physical / virtual tape backup file at a time

To add to Joe's suggestion about using save files, if you use
DTACPR(*MEDIUM) on the SAV/SAVLIB/etc. commands the resulting save file
will normally be much smaller than the library being saved.  You may
also consider ACCPTH(*NO) if your situation is agreeable.

I have saved a 135GB library into a 16GB SAVF using DTACPR(*MEDIUM).
That's about an 85% reduction in space required, not to mention it leads
to a shorter amount of time spent transmitting the file to the remote
system.

Data libraries will generally get very good compression.  Program
libraries not so much.  BTW, DTACPR(*HIGH) may result in a slightly
smaller SAVF but will take a lot longer and use a lot more CPU.


Another alternative, although it would cost most than your desired
additional disk, would be to use some form of a high availability
product to mirror Timbuktu to a local machine.  That way you never bring
Timbuktu down at all; you just back up the local mirror.  And your local
mirror can be up-to-the-second current resulting in little to no data
loss in a disaster that takes out Timbuktu. 

But HA software is expensive.  I know; we just bought Mimix.