> Hi Paul!
> You are right when you say that one should want to have his data spread over
> a minimum amount of tapes. However, I see a lot of clients that are using
> just one tape and only for a few percent.
> Because I'm using a rather "small" library (3575-L32) I cannot afford to
> give all new (small) clients their own private tape. I only have 320 tapes
> in the library, so I'm limited to 320 clients (max.) when I'm using the
> collocated concept for all clients.
> Anyway, thanks for your answer! Guess I have to buy more disk so I can
> create a non-collocated diskpool.

maxscratch of 320 here would be way uncool.  Can you imagine mounting
nearly all of these tapes everyday for migration, and then again for
backup storage pool?!  600-some-odd mounts!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Zarnowski [mailto:vkm AT CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL DOT EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 February, 2000 23:31
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Collocation
>
>
> At 04:45 PM 2/15/2000 +0100, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote:
> >Hi *SM-ers!
> >I'm currently using collocation for all my nodes. I found out that a lot of
> >them are just using one tape and thus turning off collocation for them
> would
> >be wise.
>
> Eric;  It does not follow that turning off collocation would be wise if
> your nodes are using one tape each.  In fact, this is the desireable result
> of using collocation.  If you turn off collocation, you will find your node
> data spread across a bunch of tapes.
>
> >So I created a non-collocated primary tape pool for them and since I do not
> >want clients to backup directly to tape I also created a diskpool which has
> >the non collocated tapepool as next pool.
> >Now my problem: When I want to backup to this new diskpool I have to create
> >disk pool volumes for this diskpool, using the dsmfmt tool. I tried adding
> >the disk volumes I already use in the collocated diskpool to the
> >non-collocated diskpool, but that's not allowed by ADSM.
> >Does this mean that you cannot use the same physical disk volumes for both
> >collocated as non-collocated data? If that's the case, I will have to split
> >up my (already small) physical disk pool!
>
> This is correct.  One disk storage pool cannot be used to feed multiple
> sequential storage pools.  You need a separate disk pool for each
> sequential pool.
>
> >Am I overlooking something simple here?
> >Thanks in advance for any reply!
> >Kindest regards,
> >Eric van Loon
>
> ..Paul
>
>


Steve Roder, University at Buffalo
VM Systems Programmer
UNIX Systems Administrator (Solaris and AIX)
ADSM Administrator
(tkssteve AT buffalo DOT edu | (716)645-3564 | 
http://ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu/~tkssteve)