John,

Don't want to steal Wanda's limelight, but since there is not reply yet.......

This is because ADSM does not care what physical slot a tape is in .... it
relies on the library to keep track of this for it.

Since the DEVCLASS defines a DEVTYPE, like DLT, which is tied to the
LIBRARY definition, and the LIBRARY definition is tied to the DEFINE DRIVE
command, when you run CHECKIN LIBVOL (which requires a libraryname) ADSM
goes through the aforementioned "ties" and asks the library for candidates
only in that category of tape. The library determines where it sits
(slotwise) and loads it up for ADSM.

Cheers!


At 04:13 PM 6/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Wanda,
>
>How do the two "virtual" libraries keep track of which tape slots they own
>for things like checkin?  I can understand how, once a tape is in a slot
>in the library, that ADSM would identify it in a particular device class and
>that only compatable drives would be used to load that tape, but how
>do you avoid checkin collisions?
>
>Thanks.
>
>John Sorensen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:   Prather, Wanda [SMTP:PrathW1 AT CENTRAL.SSD.JHUAPL DOT EDU]
>Sent:   Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:36 PM
>To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:        Re: Using separate tape drives for stgpools.
>
>We have an STK 9710 with 5 DLT drives and 3 3490 drives in it.
>The way that works is to create two separate LIBRARY definitions.
>The fact that they are within the same physical box doesn't bother ADSM at
>all.
>
>So you create 1 library, and define drives to it, then create another
>library and define drives to it.
>
>And you define two devclasses, one pointing to each library, and point your
>COPY pool at whichever one you want.
>
>And it works fine.  So you could separate your drives that way if you are
>trying to guarantee that the copy pool drives are never used for primary
>tapes, etc.  The only drawback is that then you have to check in tapes
>separately to each library.
>
>So the answer is it will work, but I think Dwight's solution of just setting
>appropriate mount limits is better!
>
>===============================================================
>Wanda Prather
>Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
>443-778-8769
>wanda_prather AT jhuapl DOT edu
>
>"Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."
>              - Scott Adams/Dilbert
>===============================================================
>
>
>> ----------
>> From:         Amerman, Anthony S.[SMTP:ASAmerman AT leggmason DOT com]
>> Sent:         Tuesday, June 23, 1998 4:14 PM
>> To:   ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
>> Subject:      Using separate tape drives for stgpools.
>>
>> Hi,
>>  I want to know if anyone has tried this and if it can work or not...
>>  We have 6 drives in our STK9714 library, I want to know if I can assign
>> 2 of the 6 tape drives to be used for making an offsite copy pool.  So
>> the normal scheduled backups are done on 4 of the drives and the offsite
>> copy pool is made with the other 2.
>> Would this work?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>> Anthony Shane Amerman
>> Legg Mason, Corporate Technology
>> UNIX Systems Engineer
>> 410-454-3081 25th Floor
>
>