ADSM-L

Re: Waiting endlessly for mount points on LTO...

2001-10-10 03:29:23
Subject: Re: Waiting endlessly for mount points on LTO...
From: Daniel Sparrman <daniel.sparrman AT EXIST-SWEDEN DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:20:57 +0200

Hi Justin

Yes /dev/smc0 is the device you should be using for the library.

However, the LTO is supported with 4.1 also, but you have to define the device class using the command-line interface. Is is not supported with the web-interface.

The /dev/rmt1.smc is the LTO drive in your autoloader, which has the name IBM 3581 Ultrium Autoloader.

Have you checked to see that no other processes are running? If you only have one drive, one process could lock this drive.

I have some experience with the 3581, and the problem with only one drive is that reclamation won't work(or, if you set up reclamatin to a sequential file storage pool, it will not work satisfactory). Therefore, the 3583, which can hold up to 6 drives, is a better choice. And it isn't that more expensive if you buy it with only 2 drives, and 18 cartridges.

Best Regards

Daniel Sparrman

-----------------------------------
Daniel Sparrman
Exist i Stockholm AB
Bergkällavägen 31D
192 79 SOLLENTUNA
Växel: 08 - 754 98 00
Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51

 
Justin Derrick <jderrick AT CANADA DOT COM>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
2001-10-09 21:27 AST
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"

To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Waiting endlessly for mount points on LTO...


While trying to back up a primary storagepool (5.2GB WORM) to a copy
storagepool (100GB LTO), the process waits endlessly for 'mount points to
become available' on both libraries, despite the fact that all the drives
in both libraries are empty and online.  Here's the questions, then all the
gorey details.

Here's the questions...

Any idea what's causing the endless pause mounting the required
platters/tapes?

LTO is undoubtedly better supported in 4.2 -- anyone have and comments on
this combo?  We're ordering a media kit, but would like to hear about
people's experiences before jumping ahead versions on our production system.

Is /dev/smc0 the device I should be using for the library?  As you (might)
read below, it worked for the audit library, so I'm inclined to think it's
properly configured, but I also remember having a /dev/rmt1.smc device in
the /dev directory as well.

I think that's it for questions...  Here's the specs.

AIX 4.3.3 on an RS/6k H80
TSM 4.1.3 (where it first appeared) and later 4.1.4 showed the same problem.
IBM 3995 C66 SCSI Optical Library (4 drives)
IBM LTO (don't have the model # handy) 100GB autochanger with 6 slots and
barcode reader
Atape 6.0.4.0 driver

Both device classes (for WORM and LTO) are defined with the appropriate
number of mount points.  Mountlimit is set (one on the LTO, four on the
3995), and has been switched between the actual number of drives, and the
automatic setting 'drives' with no change in behaviour.   The optical
library otherwise works perfectly, and has been in production for some
time.  The LTO is the new addition for offsite backups, and while an audit
library works (the autochanger moves the tapes around and verifies the
labels on the tapes) I can't seem to get this 'backup storagepool' command
working.

Additionally, the LTO is defined using the 'generictape' device type, since
'LTO' as a type was only implemented in 4.2 and higher.  Also, I'm using
the device /dev/smc0 as the device address for the library (as I recall
seeing in a readme file) since the 'TSM Devices' pane in smit doesn't
appear to recognize the tape library as being supported.

Another strange request though -- I'm very new to this mailing list, and
see that there's quite a bit of traffic.  If responses could be made
privately, I'll send out a digest of the input from the group in 48 to 72
hours, and as required afterwards, just to keep the traffic down to a
minimum.  As well as the obligatory summary and review of the problem and
solution once it's finished.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>