|
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
2004-10-22 10:09:51
On Oct 21, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Shannon Bach wrote:
According to the TSM most current doc
(http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/TSM390N/GC32
-0776-02/en_US/HTML/anrmrf522tfrm.htm)
this is how I should define the devclass and the reply I received
after,
tsm: MGECC_SERVER>DEFine DEVclass CART3590E DEVType=3590
ESTCAPacity=20G FORMAT=3590E-C COMPression=Yes MAXCAPacity=0
PREFIX=ADSM MOUNTRetention=1 MOUNTWait=60 MOUNTLimit=2
EXPiration=99365 PROtection=YES UNIT=3590
Session established with server MGECC_SERVER: MVS
Server Version 5, Release 1, Level 7.0
Server date/time: 10/21/2004 15:02:56 Last access: 10/21/2004
15:02:08
ANR2020E DEFINE DEVCLASS: Invalid parameter - FORMAT.
Nowhere in my 5.1 manual is a reference to the" Format=" in the Define
Devclass, so I was wondering if it is because out TSM server is at
5.1.7.0 instead of 5.2.
See what happens when your initial postings don't specify your
platform?... :-)
I haven't been in MVS|OS/390|zOS for years, so a current customer in
that area
could provide more insight, but it appears that through TSM 5.2, there
was no
provision for specifying Devclass FORMAT in that environment, which
implies that
TSM discerned it from the OS environment. It appears that with TSM
5.2.2,
IBM decided to normalize the product code base, and as of that level
FORMAT can
be speicified, as on other platforms. The publications people
shortchanged the
doc, as the Technical Changes summary in the 5.2.2 Admin Ref is minimal
and fails
to mention the FORMAT addition.
Ostensibly, you would be okay in 5.1 to simply code as much as that
level
allows and let that TSM discern the 3590 drive type. Again, an MVS
customer
with 3590e would be in the best position to comment, based upon
esperience.
Richard Sims
|
|
|
