Have you ever been bitten by deleting a drive from adsm and not
decrementing the mountlimit?  ADSM assumes it has more drives available
than are defined to the library and many transactions fail with the
message

   8447E No drives are currently available in library

I am working a change to the ADSM server (for unix's, OS/2, and NT
platforms) that will better tie the MOUNTLIMIT of a device class to the
number of drives in the devclass's library.  Does anyone see a problem
with this?  There's no reason in my mind that the devclass's mountlimit
should ever be set to anything other than the number of drives of that
Device Type that are defined in the library.  But do any customers have
more drives defined to adsm and perhaps set the mount limit lower in
order to control drive usage?  Also are there customers that have
multiple device classes (of the same device type) that use the same
library?  In this case, it is the total of ALL the devclass's
mountlimits that must be set to the number of drives. If you have either
such a configuration, I woul really like to know what the reason is and
to see if there is another way to accomplish your purpose.  Otherwise,
this may be restricted in a future version.

I'm not talking about 3494 libraries that contian both 3490 and 3590
drives- these are different device types.  So are 3995 optical jukeboxes
that have both WORM and OPTICAL device clases defined to them.

Craig Bell