Julie,

  I just thought that I would mention something I ran across.  I considered
using ADSM just like you are, but when I offered this report to our LAN
planning/upkeep team they said that they had this data from another source.
 However, when I was thinking about doing this I had noted in a ADSM API
manual that there are calls to update the data on filespace information.
Depending on how much you want to keep using ADSM for this information, you
might consider coding a little utility that will query hard drive
information and then send ADSM the correct values.  You could run this as a
post processing command.  The manual I refer to is sh26-4002-00.

Keep us informed if you attempt this solution, I would be interested in
getting a copy of the utility for myself.

Good luck,
  Dan T.

----------
> From: Julie Phinney <julphinn AT EMPHESYS.E-MAIL DOT COM>
> From: Julie Phinney <julphinn AT EMPHESYS.E-MAIL DOT COM>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Client drv util numbers
> Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 5:14 PM
>
> I use ADSM to report on drive capacity (OS/2 Lan Servers are the
> clients.  Clients with large hard drives report incorrect capacity,
> so I just hard-code the correct capacity into the report.  The
> %UTIL is/was always correct though, and could be used against the
> original drive capacity number to get actual utilization.  For
> instance, if a 6 GB drive is reported as 2 GB, %166 used, I assume
> the actual bytes used is 2GB* 166% = 3.32 GB.  But now I've noticed
> one one of the clients the  reported capacity is 158 MB (actual is
> 8 GB) and the %util is reported as 81%. By my previous theory (that
> %util is accurate if taken against the original reported capacity)
> This drive would only be 127 MB utilized.  And actually it's about
> 90% utilized.  So can I just not trust the %utilized number either?
> So that even if I hard code the capacity, I can't get accurate numbers?
> Does anyone know?
> Thanks!
> Julie Phinney
> JULPHINN @ EMPHESYS.E-MAIL.COM