Greg,

Just to clarify, do you mean to say open an requirement with the
3590 group, or with ADSM? It seems that the 3590 already supports
this type of sharing, so I presume it would be with ADSM?

Re: your example, wouldn't the tape that is being used by the
first ADSM server no longer be in the "scratch" category as
defined by the 3494, and thus not eligible for use by the second
ADSM server?

 -- Tom


"If I could dot the 'i' in a Michigan     Thomas A. La Porte
 game and the good lord came to take me   Archivist, Feature Animation
 the next day ... at least I could        DreamWorks SKG
 die happy." - Beano Cook, ESPN           <tlaporte AT anim.dreamworks DOT com>

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Greg Tevis wrote:

>Warning!  This is not a supported configuration.  Currently, the
>official position is that the drives need to be dedicated to a
>particular server.  The 3494 does not have any problem being
>accessed by multiple servers.  And physically, the 3590 drives can
>be attached to multiple systems...but they can not be shared by
>multiple systems with impunity.  The problem is that an underlying
>RESERVE macro does not currently operate  across systems.  Thus,
>an adsm server can not be sure it has exclusive rights to a drive.
>You can run like this but you open the door for problems..eg, one
>adsm server is using one of its tapes and the other server requests
>a scratch mount...the tape in the drive will look like a valid
>scratch tape to the second server.
>
>ADSM did recently put in an enhancement to allow dynamic sharing of
>3590 drives within a 3494...but only for sharing between ADSM and other
>applications on the same system (including a 2nd adsm server on the
>same system).  This support is not for across system.
>
>I would encourage those interested to open a 3590 requirement for this.
>...greg tevis
>