ADSM-L

Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL

2015-10-04 17:47:36
Subject: Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL
From: Kirsten Gloeer [mailto:Kirsten.Gloeer AT RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE DOT DE]
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Hello,

Sometimes, we have problems with writing labels to tapes, too.
By issuing the command

        LABEL libvolume robbi MK0193 devtype=CARTRIDGE OVERWRITE=yes

within ADSM server A, the following message arises

        ANR8808E Could not write label MK0193 on the volume in
        drive 853 (/dev/rmt63) of library ROBBI because that
        volume is already labeled with AD4433 which is still
        defined in a storage pool or volume history.

By issuing the same command within ADSM server B, the volume was labeled
without any problems.

Best regards,
Kirsten Gloeer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Gloeer                  e-mail: gloeer AT rz.uni-karlsruhe DOT de
Kirsten Gloeer                  e-mail: gloeer AT rz.uni-karlsruhe DOT de
University of Karlsruhe         Phone:  +49 721 608-6156
Computing Center                Fax:    +49 721 32550
Zirkel 2
76131 Karlsruhe
Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What errrors are you getting?
> What errrors are you getting?
>
> 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 10:01 AM
> To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:        Re: LABEL LIBV versus DSMLABEL
>
> 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>