Yes, but when it expires a copypool volume, it mounts volumes from the primary 
storage pool to copy data that is not expired to a new copypool before 
releasing the copypool volume to scratch. This may require many mounts of 
primary storage pool volumes to return one copypool volume to scratch. Seems to 
me the more efficient method would be to spin thru the copypool volume, copying 
still valid files to the new copypool volume, just like is done when a primary 
storage pool volume is reclaimed.

>>> GPRATO AT BROWARD DOT ORG 01/10/02 01:43PM >>>
when you issue a "del vol xxxxxx discard=yes" is only delete's the information 
on the "database" and the "Volume History", it never calles for a mount of the 
volume.  Then when inventory runs it then delete the entries in the database.

Enterprise Software Programmer
Broward County Florida
Mr. Gerard Prato
gprato AT broward DOT org 

>>> lmorris AT SERVERGRAPH DOT COM 01/10/02 01:35PM >>>
The copypool volumes are normally off-site, in a vault with no tape drives.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Lawrence Clark
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU 
> Subject: Copypool reclamation
>
>
> Can any explain to me the reasoning behind having the valid data
> from a reclamation on a copypool volume having to be obtained
> from the primary storage pool?
>
> It seems to me that it would be much more efficient to copy the
> valid data directly from the copypool volume being reclaimed to
> the target copypool volume.
>