You are a little vague when you say "It never writes any data to the 1 TB
files." Are you saying that even when the 10x100GB volumes are filled, it
refuses to fill the 1TB volumes? It hangs/dies/sits quietly in this
situation?

Regardless, I _imagine_ this should be a valid volume size. Not to say its a
good idea of any sort. I see that for FILE device classes, the MAXCAPACITY
parameter is limited by the largest file allowed on the given filesystem,
which, by your reference, is only limited by the NTFS volume size. Microsoft
says 16 TB:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766145.aspx

Regardless again, its probably not a good idea to define such volumes. I see
no benefit, and its dangerous, uncharted waters that you are subjecting your
clients' data to. As these 1TB volumes have no data in them, you are
completely free to redefine them or consider FILE instead.

Good luck!

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Christian Svensson <
Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se> wrote:

> Hi all *SMers,
> I just have a quick question for you all. I met a customer today where they
> tried to setup a 4 TB Diskpool on Windows Server 2003 TSM Server.
> And the person who setup the volume did setup something like this 10 x
> 100GB and 3 x 1TB. All the TSM Client backups went fine but TSM Server did
> only send in data to the Diskpool Volumes that was 100GB Each. It never
> write any data to the 1TB files.
>
> I have never see anyone create a 1TB Diskpool Volume, so my question is,
> have anyone done that before and is it even supported?
> NTFS should have support for that kind of size of files but does TSM
> Support it?
>
> More info about NTFS max sizes:  http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
>
>
>
> Best Regards
> Christian Svensson
>
> Cell: +46-70-325 1577
> E-mail: Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se
> Skype: cristie.christian.svensson




--
Sam Rawlins