Diana,

Who are you working with on the I/O problems?  Is there a contact in Tuscon (or
wherever) that you could give me?  We've got an open PMR on this issue right now
and I'd like to be able to pass that info on to our CE so he can touch base with
them.  And the end of the month is tomorrow...I sure hope they can have this
ready soon!  This is causing us a lot of headaches!

Good luck,

Kathleen








Diana Noble <djk AT UMICH DOT EDU> on 01/30/2001 11:22:46 AM

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>



  To:          ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU

  cc:          (bcc: Kathleen M Hallahan/ISS/HQ/FHLMC)



  Subject      Re: Problems after 4.1 Upgrade and Resolutions
  :








We are running D25D.  This level of microcode ran fine prior to going to
TSM 4.1.  We had never had an IO error before then.  Now we receive the
errors on both our tape drives.

At 08:43 AM 1/30/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Diane,
>
>What level of microcode are you currently running on your 3590 tape drives.
>We are running 3590E1A tape drives with a microcode level of D22E.  We have
>been on this level of code for quite some time with no errors.  Our 3590's
>are also house within a 3494.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Diana Noble [mailto:djk AT UMICH DOT EDU]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:15 AM
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: Problems after 4.1 Upgrade and Resolutions
>
>
>I had posted some questions last month regarding problems we encountered
>after our upgrade to TSM 4.1 and thought I would pass along what we
>found.  We are using AIX 4.3, 3590E's and a 3494.
>
>When issuing the dsmadmc command we received "ANS1033E An invalid TCP/IP
>host name was specified".  Resolution was to edit
>/usr/tivoli/tsm/client/ba/bin/dsm.sys and add a line for TCPServeraddress
>which stated the tsm server name in full.  This was apparently not
>necessary under 3.1.
>
>We could not label K tapes.  We had problems with this under 3.1, but it
>turned out IBM needed to flick a switch on the drives.  We upgraded the
>same day.  We would receive "ANR8750E Volume is incompatible with specified
>device type".  IBM had defined the volume range for the K tapes as "K
>extended" and should have been defined as just "K".
>
>We also started receiving IO errors on our 3590 tape drives.  This still
>persists today, but a microcode fix for the problem is in test at IBM and
>is suppose to be released by the end of the month (Hopefully!).  The error
>we are receiving is "ANR8302E I/O error on drive RMT1 (/dev/rmt1)
>(OP=WRITE, CC=0, KEY=0B, ASC=44, ASCQ=00".