Like a lot of things, autolabel slipped by me. I'll have to wait until there
are no i/o's going to it until I can make the change. Hope my input was worth
your while otherwise...  :)

-----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 10:22 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Tape checkin

Yes we have this option set to yes actually. It is a 3584 Library.





"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> writes:
>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.
>




______________________________________________
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.