Bill,

Thanks for the update/info.  I guess I will wait for 6.1.5.200, which is
scheduled for 1Q2012.

Yes, we did switch to the "Unified Recovery" license model but with enough
room for growth/shrinkage so I don't know if this will matter that much
(roughly 15TB difference on this, my only 6.1 server).  I will pass this
on to let know folks that Occupancy numbers on this server are
"artificially inflated" and therefore inaccurate (high by about 15% if my
"gozinta" is correct).


Zoltan Forray
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html



From:   "Colwell, William F." <bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM>
To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date:   03/07/2012 09:24 AM
Subject:        Re: [ADSM-L] Occupancy discrepancy between 6.1.5.10 and
6.2.3.0 server
Sent by:        "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>



Zoltan,

occupancy numbers were made incorrect by various bugs in early 6.1 code,
see apar ic73005.  There is a special utility to fix the numbers, "repair
occupancy".
It was supposed to be in 6.1.5.10 but isn't, you need an e-fix for
6.1.5.102.

Of course, you can ignore the errors unless you are using the unified
recovery license.


Bill Colwell
Draper Lab



-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:26 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Occupancy discrepency between 6.1.5.10 and 6.2.3.0 server

Doing some reorganization, we recently moved (server-to-server export)
some nodes from a 6.1.5.10 server to a 6.2.3.0 server.  Now, the occupancy
numbers on the 6.2 (71mb) server are lower than the 6.1.5 (83mb) server,
eventhough the file/object counts are identical (static file system)?

All of the apars I found (so far) that address occupancy information are
at (supposedly) patch levels below these levels.

Anyone else see this kind of discrepancy?

Zoltan Forray
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html