Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL
1999-02-01 23:35:00
>In fact...
>
>Even if i assign OVERWRITE=YES, i still have problems with writing the
>labels to the tapes.
>
>with kind regards, / met vriendelijke groeten,
>Johan Pol
>Boerhaavelaan 11 - 2713 HA - Zoetermeer - Tel. (+31)79 3223051 - Fax.
>(+31)79 3213989
>Internet :JPol AT nl.ibm DOT com / johan.pol AT xerion.be.philips DOT com
>
>
>
>"Kelly J. Lipp" <lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM> on 01-02-99 17:20:01
>
>Please respond to "lipp AT storsol DOT com" <lipp AT storsol DOT com>
>
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>cc: (bcc: Johan Pol/Netherlands/Contr/IBM)
>Subject: Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL
>
>
>
>
>
>In the case of label libvol you specify overwrite=no and in dsmlabel you
>specified -overwrite. That's why dsmlabel wrote labels and label libvol
>didn't.
>
>I like dsmlabel for that first labeling job. You can use multiple tape
>drives and label libvol will only use one at a time. In some future
>release, it will dawn on engineering to add a processes= switch to label
>libvol so all the drives can be used, but until then, dsmlabel gets my
>vote.
>
>That said, the caveats should be discussed. Don't use dsmlabel without
>extreme care. Since it isn't aware of ADSM or ADSM of it, you can easily
>write over tapes you did not mean to write on. Understand the tool before
>using it!
>
>Kelly J. Lipp
>Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
>www.storsol.com
>lipp AT storsol DOT com
>(719)531-5926
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Johan Pol
>Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 8:03 AM
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL
>
>Hi ADSM fans,
>
>Is there anyone who have experience with the labelling of tapes.
>We are using a Windows NT 4.0 environment, with IBM Magstar 3570 connected.
>Further we are using ADSM Version 3.1 for the servers and Version 3.1.3 on
>the NT client.
>
>If we label tapes with the LABEL LIBV MAGLIB LABELSOURCE=BARCODE
>CHECKIN=SCR OVERWRITE=NO SEARCH=YES command, none of the tapes are
>labelled.
>If we however use the DSMLABEL.EXE -DRIVE=xx,xx -LIBRARY=xxx -OVERWRITE
>-SEARCH -BARCODE - KEEP utility it worked fine.
>
>I thought that LABEL LIBV has the same functionality as the DSMLABEL
>command ???
>
>with kind regards, / met vriendelijke groeten,
>Johan Pol
>Boerhaavelaan 11 - 2713 HA - Zoetermeer - Tel. (+31)79 3223051 - Fax.
>(+31)79 3213989
>Internet :JPol AT nl.ibm DOT com / johan.pol AT xerion.be.philips DOT com
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Johan Pol
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kelly J. Lipp
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Johan Pol
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kelly J. Lipp
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL,
Johan Pol <=
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Leo Humar
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kirsten Gloeer
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Survoy, Bernard J
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kelly J. Lipp
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kirsten Gloeer
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kirsten Gloeer
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kelly J. Lipp
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Kirsten Gloeer
- LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Johan Pol
- Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL, Johan Pol
|
|
|