Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes
a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie
me) can vote for it?
Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something
that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to
use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our
mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using
a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us.
Thanks
Grant
On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote:
Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for
each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout
procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live
with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us
more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is
a defect.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +0000, Prather, Wanda wrote:
I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one
device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on
Windows).
What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries,
so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and
storage pools to use going forward.
Wanda Prather
TSM Consultant
ICF International Cybersecurity Division
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Skylar Thompson
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing
environment
Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this.
It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the
library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two
different paths) could share a single device special node.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote:
It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with
LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get
mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in
which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it
work, but it did not work.
Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a
much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives,
compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP
drives.
The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one
consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of
the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be
identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001,
which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can
use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check
tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like
VOLRANGE=L50000,L59999 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure
the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately
the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors.
You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful
recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L
archives for "UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5". Thanks again to Remco Post
and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012!
Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rogerd AT uic DOT edu
======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape
somewhere.=====
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote:
On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote:
Hi folks,
We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x
LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the
library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior
when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding
is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially
in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume
mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available,
and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available.
What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives
first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that
all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers.
I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do
any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up
in the least-capable drives first.
Any thoughts?
--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine
might be a stab in the dark ..... try numbering the drives such that
the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa.
That way when tsm "scans" for an available drive it will always try
the LTO5's first.
HTH
Grant
--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine
--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine
|
