>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:50:25 -0500, Andrew Carlson <naclosagc AT GMAIL DOT 
>> COM> said:

> Is this really a good answer?  I know it's "working as designed", as
> IBM is sometimes fond of saying.  TSM knows whats on what tapes.  It
> seems like, unless the processing required to do it would be
> substantial, TSM could split the processes so this doesn't occur, at
> least as often.  With non-collocated tapes, I can see that it could
> happen sometimes, but I would think TSM could be smart enough to
> minimize it.

A threshold would be nice: So I could express the idea

"If you've waited more than 10 minutes for a volume, then skip it, in
that case I prefer the 'skipped work' failure mode to the 'stalled
process' failure mode"

I've had as many as 4 tape drives idle, (2 processes, one reader one
writer each) waiting for an in-use volume, and sometimes it's been
hours before I noticed them.


- Allen S. Rout