A couple weeks a ago I posted the following in an effort to clear up
an apparent misconception about how copy storage pools work.

"Assuming a healthy database, any file in a copy storage pool must also
reside in a primary pool. Message ANR1163W just means that reclamation
ended without moving one or more files from a copy pool volume.  This
could be because the primary pool volume on which the files reside is
unavailable or maybe the primary files were moved during reclamation
and therefore were not found."

I will restate this for emphasis:

Assuming that the database is intact, there will NEVER be an object in a
copy storage pool unless a primary copy of that object is stored in a
primary storage pool.  There are ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule.
This means that whenever a primary file is deleted, (e.g., because of
expiration or volume deletion), any copies in copy storage pools are also
deleted in the same transaction.  As an aside, this also explains why you
should never recklessly delete files from a primary volume that has been
lost or destroyed; to do so also causes database references for any backup
copies to be deleted from the database.

>A.  When step 1 above is complete, and the new file is backed up, of course
>and old, inactive file is deleted.  Is the corresponding backup file for the
>now deleted file also deleted?  It would appear not - that would explain why I
>get a rash of files on copypool tapes that cannot be reclaimed because the
>primary copy no longer exists.

As explained above, any backup copy is deleted when the primary file
is deleted.  IF A FILE DOES NOT GET RECLAIMED IT IS NOT BECAUSE THE PRIMARY
COPY DOES NOT EXIST.  It is simply because the primary copy could not
be used for some reason (for example, because the primary copy is stored
on an unavailable volume).

>B.  When step 3 occurs, is the oldest inactive backup deleted (if it fits
>criteria?)  It would seem so, thus explaining why my tape disappeared last
>night.

File copies are not normally deleted during storage pool backup, since they are
deleted at the same time the primary files are deleted.  However, if the backup
copy is known to be damaged, the next storage pool backup will cause the
file to be backed up again.  References to the original, damaged backup
copy are deleted, so conceivably this could cause a tape to become empty.

>Also, this looks like an operational issue.  My first preference would be that
>if an inactive file is deleted, I would like the copy of the file to also
>disappear to, since I assume the file is now useless - it can't be restored be
>cause the primary file is gone.

It works that way now.

>PS - I unfortunately did not have a chance to do a Q content on the tape in
>question, so I can't answer the question you raised.  I would tend to think
>though, that there was a backup for this file - since I am looking at a copy
>of the file in a copypool already (although I understand that there is the
>possibility as you pointed out that this is not the same file.......

Identical names mean nothing.  These were very likely different versions
of the same file, and would therefore be treated as distinct objects.

Dave Cannon
ADSM Development