Gary,
I agree with all the previous comments.  It is easy to maintain, and has few 
problems.  The one fly in its ointment is that the Web Speclalist interface 
redefines the word 'slow' when accessed from a browser.  If it is accessed from 
a TS3000 console --which is no longer made--  its response time meets normal 
expectations.  The hotshot for our region said the response time problem is due 
to the firmware having grown quite large in relation to the built-in memory.  
There may be a memory upgrade in the plans for it.

Best wishes,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University

    
On May 2, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Dollens, Bruce wrote:

> We have been using a 3584 for about 12 years and have had no issues at all 
> with it. The only time it has been "down" is for firmware upgrades, replacing 
> tape drives (upgrade from LTO2 to LTO4), and when we moved to our new 
> datacenter. Very stable and a great workhorse.
> 
> We use it only for TSM, but I know of a couple of colleges around here as 
> well as a couple of businesses that use the 3584 and have had the same 
> experience.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Kevin Kettner
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 4:32 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] looking for experiences with the ibm 3584 library
> 
> We are also looking to upgrade from a 3494 to a 3584. So far as I can tell 
> the 3584 seems to be practically a drop-in replacement for the 3494.
> 
> 
> On 5/2/2014 14:39, Lee, Gary wrote:
>> Looking at updating our tape libraries for other rojects which might use 
>> ltfs.
>> We currently have the ibm 3494 library with 3592-e05 (ts1120) drives.
>> 
>> It seems that we must go to the 3584 to get access to lto type tapes, yet 
>> keep using our e05s for tsm.
>> 
>> I would like to hear others experiences with the 3584 with or without tsm. 
>> If possible, compare and contrast with the 3494.
>> 
>> Thanks all for the assistance.
> [http://infonet.txfb-ins.com//images//email-signature-image.jpg]
> WWW.TXFB-INS.COM<http://www.txfb-ins.com>
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The foregoing message (including attachments) is 
> covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 
> 2510-2521, and is CONFIDENTIAL. If you believe that it has been sent to you 
> in error, do not read it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
> hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
> of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that 
> you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
> 
> Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies received the highest numerical score 
> among auto insurance providers in Texas in the proprietary J.D. Power 2013 
> U.S. Auto Insurance Study(SM). Study based on 45,521 total responses 
> measuring 8 providers in Texas and measures opinions of consumers with their 
> auto insurance provider. Proprietary study results are based on experiences 
> and perceptions of consumers surveyed March –April 2013. Your experiences may 
> vary. Visit jdpower.com.