Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives

According to the TSM most current doc (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/TSM390N/GC32-0776-02/en_US/HTML/anrmrf522tfrm.htm)
this is how I should define the devclass and the reply I received after,

tsm: MGECC_SERVER>DEFine DEVclass CART3590E DEVType=3590 ESTCAPacity=20G FORMAT=3590E-C COMPression=Yes MAXCAPacity=0 PREFIX=ADSM MOUNTRetention=1 MOUNTWait=60 MOUNTLimit=2 EXPiration=99365 PROtection=YES UNIT=3590

Session established with server MGECC_SERVER: MVS
Server Version 5, Release 1, Level 7.0
Server date/time: 10/21/2004 15:02:56 Last access: 10/21/2004 15:02:08
ANR2020E DEFINE DEVCLASS: Invalid parameter - FORMAT.

Nowhere in my 5.1 manual is a reference to the" Format=" in the Define Devclass, so I was wondering if it is because out TSM server is at 5.1.7.0 instead of 5.2.

Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

10/21/2004 02:20 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"

To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives

On Oct 21, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Shannon Bach wrote:

> When I tried to add the format=drive option, it came back with an
> invalid option error. I couldn't figure out where I put this. I
> followed the manual's format but the manual was 5.2 and my server is
> 5.1.7. Could this be the problem?

Why would you not use the manual appropriate to the software level?
The TSM 4.2 to 5.2.2 manuals can be had at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/tdprodlist.html
Note also that the server README file historically has carried info on
how to proceed with drive technology upgrades.

I tend to avoid vague definitions such as Format=Drive: specifying
exactly
what is what is generally safer. Choose an explicit format per the
manual.

We don't know what problem you are having. Please post what the
fundamental
problem is, with any pertinent error messages.

Richard Sims