ADSM-L

Re: Reclaimed to a different pool?!

1999-07-28 07:55:33
Subject: Re: Reclaimed to a different pool?!
From: Adam Slesinger <aslesinger AT US.BNSMC DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:55:33 -0400
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.  During reclamation of the offsite tape copy 
pool, TAPECOPYPOOL, a volume from our primary onsite
tape pool, TAPEPOOL, was grabbed and used as the output volume for the 
reclamation process.  Can anyone tell me why on earth ADSM
would do this?  It should have created a new tape in TAPECOPYPOOL and have 
written the data to that volume to be taken offsite,
right?  My concern is that TAPECOPYPOOL is now not an exact duplicate of 
TAPEPOOL because the reclamation removed the data from
the four offsite tapes in TAPECOPYPOOL and consolidated it onto a tape in 
TAPEPOOL .  Does anybody have any ideas?  Thank you!

adam
__________________
Adam Slesinger
Corporate Information Systems
Brown & Sharpe, RI
Phone: (401) 886-2236
Pager: (800) 913-5395
Email: aslesinger AT us.bnsmc DOT com



Richard Cowen wrote:

> >We have a primary tape pool (TAPEPOOL) and a copy pool (TAPECOPYPOOL)
> >both made up of DLT tapes.  We're in the process of creating processes
> >to send and retrieve the copy pool tapes to our offsite location without
> >the help DRM.  We created a schedule to kick off reclamation of the copy
> >pool tapes on Sunday, so there would be tapes to return on Monday.  When
> >I checked the activity log for the reclamation, it had identified 4
> >offsite tapes in TAPECOPYPOOL that were eligible to be reclaimed.  The
> >weird thing is that it grabbed and wrote the data to a private volume in
> >TAPEPOOL!  I was under the impression that a new tape volume would be
> >defined in TAPECOPYPOOL, the data would be written to that tape, we'd
> >send that tape offsite, and bring the other 4, now empty, tapes back.
> >Could someone tell what a possible reason exists for it to have grabbed
> >a tape from a different pool as the output of the reclamation??
>
> What pool did it go to?
> Sample of one of mine:
>
> 07/23/99   11:39:20      ANR2202I Storage pool BACKUP3590_OFFSITE updated.
> 07/23/99   11:39:20      ANR0984I Process 467 for SPACE RECLAMATION started
>                           in the BACKGROUND at 11:39:20.
> 07/23/99   11:39:20      ANR1040I Space reclamation started for volume M00386,
>                           storage pool BACKUP3590_OFFSITE (process number 
> 467).
>
> ...
> 07/23/99   11:41:53      ANR1044I Removable volume M00582 is required for 
> space    <== source of files to copy
>                           reclamation.
> 07/23/99   11:41:53      ANR8324I 3590 volume M00582 is expected to be mounted
>                           (R/O).
> 07/23/99   11:43:01      ANR8337I 3590 volume M00368 mounted in drive DRIVE02
>                           (/dev/rmt1).
> 07/23/99   11:43:02      ANR8337I 3590 volume M00582 mounted in drive DRIVE01
>                           (/dev/rmt0).
> ....
> 07/23/99   11:55:47      ANR8341I End-of-volume reached for 3590 volume 
> M00368.     <== existing volume in BACKUP3590_OFFSITE
> 07/23/99   11:55:51      ANR8336I Verifying label of 3590 volume M00368 in 
> drive
>                           DRIVE02 (/dev/rmt1).
> 07/23/99   11:56:17      ANR8468I 3590 volume M00368 dismounted from drive 
> DRIVE02
>                           (/dev/rmt1) in library MAGSTAR3494.
> 07/23/99   11:59:35      ANR8337I 3590 volume M00655 mounted in drive DRIVE02
>                           (/dev/rmt1).
> 07/23/99   11:59:37      ANR1340I Scratch volume M00655 is now defined in 
> storage
>                           pool BACKUP3590_OFFSITE.                            
>       <== new volume in BACKUP3590_OFFSITE
>
> Richard

--
=========================================================================
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>