One relatively minor change to Richard's statement -- 

> Keep in mind the basic principle that an object remains in the
> copypool ONLY as long as it the original object remains in _a_ primary
> pool, a tenet which you can use to advantage.

I've seen the same thing -- as long as the data is in a primary pool, it
hasn't expired. If it hasn't expired, it won't automatically fall off
the copypool tape.  And -- if the data was copied to that copypool, it
will STAY in that copypool when you run a reclaim on the volume. So wait
until the copypool volume qualifies for a reclaim and delete it instead
of reclaiming it.

The next backup of your primary storage will effectively recreate the
deleted volume with just the data that truly belongs in the copypool.

Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Nick Laflamme
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:01 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: separation of copypool tapes

Richard Sims wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Haberstroh, Debbie (IT) wrote:
>
>> Deleting all of my copypool volumes could be a problem since I am
>> only moving half of the tapepool data and have over 600 copypool
>> tapes.  I will need to find a better way to remove the data. Thanks
>> for the answer about the data still being there, I wasn't sure how
>> that would work.
>
> Keep in mind the basic principle that an object remains in the
> copypool ONLY as long as it the original object remains in the primary
> pool, a tenet which you can use to advantage.

While I know better than to challenge or contradict someone like Richard
too often, I'm curious about how I can prove this to myself.

We've been doing a lot of MODE NODEDATA commands recently as we move
data into pools that collocate by group. The copy storage pools that
correspond to the original smaller tape storage pools don't seem to be
shrinking and expiring as long as the data is still somewhere on the
managed node. We seem to be ending up with three copies of data: the
primary, now in the collocated pool; a secondary in the copy pool of the
collocated pool, and another secondary in the copy pool of the older,
smaller pool.

We're running TSM 5.3 on AIX, if that matter, but for something that
Richard describes as a "tenet", one would hope this goes back to WDSF on
VM days. :)

>     Richard Sims

Nick Laflamme
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and any attachments are for the 
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in 
reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please 
notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message 
and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive  
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.