Gary is right, if you have enough diskspace, migration is not needed, you
can also use move data or move nodedata to "migrate" the data.
But if you use the first stgpool on disk, just to migrate all data to tape,
diskpool is much easier, faster and as you noticed cheaper than a filepool.
A diskpool is even still a lot of time used in front of a filepool for
better performance, just as a cache.

As long as you migrate all data, a huge diskpool is no problem.
Only if you use the diskpool to keep all data, you will loose a lot of space
in time, as you can't defrag the aggregates and perfomance can drop for
restores because of the huge amount op pointers used for diskpools.

Regards,
Maurice van 't Loo
Freelance TSM Specialist
The Netherlands
- Available -


2010/12/6 Lee, Gary D. <GLEE AT bsu DOT edu>

> Give the "move data" command a try.
> This will move data from one volume in a sequencial pool to another.
>
>
>
> Gary Lee
> Senior System Programmer
> Ball State University
> phone: 765-285-1310
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> TSM
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 4:16 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] we need more tapes in the next pool after replacing a
> primary disk pool with a primary sequential pool
>
> Hello,
>
> We replaced a primary disk pool on fc disks with a bigger primary
> sequential pool on sata disks.
> The primary sequential pool on disk is migrated to a primary pool an tape
> using 3 processes.
> Both pools are collocated by node.
> Now we need more tapes in the next pool because the migration wrote some
> tapes for the same node in parallel and for the same node there are more
> tapes in filling state.
>
> Any solution for reducing the tapes in filling state?
>
> with best regards
> Andreas.
>