ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Tape checkin

2007-05-23 11:20:38
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Tape checkin
From: "Bell, Charles (Chip)" <Chip.Bell AT BHSALA DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:19:24 -0500
For 3584?

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Bos,
Karel
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:03 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Tape checkin

Hi,

Instead of the 'label libv' you can set the library in ITSM to autolabel
new tapes. 

Regards,

Karel


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Bell, Charles (Chip)
Sent: woensdag 23 mei 2007 16:46
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Tape checkin

Yes, we use the checklabel=barcode option on tapes that TSM has already
initialized in the past. If they are brand new tapes, we use 'label
libvol'.
Pros: 1. Bypassing drives + using waittime=0 = quicker checkin...duh,
you knew that. 2. We did not always have available drives, or one was
taken while a checkin was in progress, which will fail a checkin job.
Not good if there are no watchful operators around. We've had that
happen where an alert operator is absent, and tapes that failed to
checkin the previous day were still in the bulk door, the next operator
removes tapes (after the drm checkout script runs) that he/she believes
need to be going offsite, and sends them off via the courier. Unless
less you like putting your Sherlock hat on and putting your spyglass to
the offsite vendor's downloaded tape inventory, comparing what you think
should be in your library, just use the checkl=b.  :)

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Chris McKay
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:26 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Tape checkin

Hi all,

We were told to use the following command to check-in tapes brought back
from the vault: 'checkin libvol 3584lib search=bulk checklabel=yes
status=scratch waittime=0

I have also checked in tapes using the checklabel=barcode option
(usually only when checking in brand new tapes), which bypasses the
drives. I was thinking this would be a much better option to use all of
the time, as it is much faster and would cause less wear and tear on the
tape drives themselves. Does anyone have any pros and cons of the two
different options, and what would you recommend.

Any info would be appreciated.

Regards,

Chris
-----------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this email message is privileged and
confidential information and intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named in the address. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please notify the sender and delete this
information from your computer and retain no copies of any of this
information.

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