1. Forum Rules (PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ BEFORE POSTING) Click the link to access ADSM.ORG Acceptable Use Policy and forum rules which should be observed when using this website. Violators may be banned from this website. This message will disappear after you have made at least 12 posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

LTO3 and LTO4 tapes in a LTO4 "library"

Discussion in 'TSM Installation, Upgrade and Configuration' started by Stephan, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Stephan

    Stephan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Storage / System Administrator (UNIX)
    Location:
    Great White North
    Hi.

    We are migrating to a new library with all LTO4 drives. I created a Device Class for LTO4s and labeled some tapes. I'd like though, to use my LTO3s for long term vaulting such as backupsets...

    I thought, i'd create a LTO3 devclass, then when generating the backupset with the option deviceclass LTO3 that i would mount a LTO3 tape and write to it...But no.

    The behavior i am seeing, is that it mounts every single LTO4 scratch tape, fails on it and puts it in a "private" status to prevent reuse...! Then, when it finally reaches a LTO3, it starts...It seems to grab the LTO4 first, since the are numbered for example 110000L4 whereas the LTO3 are 700000L3. So it looks like it grabs the "smallest" numbered tapes first...

    So, what are Device Class for then? I thought, that when labelling the tape, TSM would "know" that he just labeled a LTO3 thus picking one up right away when i specify to use LTO3 devlclass?

    If not, apart from scripting it...any ideas?

    Thanks.
     
  2.  
  3. JeanSeb

    JeanSeb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    TSM admin, Linux Sys Admin
    Location:
    Quebec City
    Could you post "q devc f=d" just to eliminate the obvious ?
     
  4. Stephan

    Stephan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Storage / System Administrator (UNIX)
    Location:
    Great White North
    Sure thing...! :) Are you doing something similar?


    Device Class Name: T950_LTO3_DEVCLASS
    Device Access Strategy: Sequential
    Storage Pool Count: 0
    Device Type: LTO
    Format: ULTRIUM3C
    Est/Max Capacity (MB): 819,200.0
    Mount Limit: DRIVES
    Mount Wait (min): 30
    Mount Retention (min): 2
    Label Prefix: ADSM
    Library: T950
    Directory:
    Server Name:
    Retry Period:
    Retry Interval:
    Shared:
    High-level Address:
    Minimum Capacity:
    WORM: No
    Drive Encryption: Allow
    Scaled Capacity:
    Last Update by (administrator): DURS
    Last Update Date/Time: 01/18/2010 08:45:28

    Device Class Name: T950_LTO4_DEVCLASS
    Device Access Strategy: Sequential
    Storage Pool Count: 1
    Device Type: LTO
    Format: ULTRIUM4C
    Est/Max Capacity (MB): 1,638,400.0
    Mount Limit: DRIVES
    Mount Wait (min): 30
    Mount Retention (min): 2
    Label Prefix: ADSM
    Library: T950
    Directory:
    Server Name:
    Retry Period:
    Retry Interval:
    Shared:
    High-level Address:
    Minimum Capacity:
    WORM: No
    Drive Encryption: Allow
    Scaled Capacity:
    Last Update by (administrator): DURS
    Last Update Date/Time: 01/18/2010 08:46:11
     
  5. JeanSeb

    JeanSeb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    TSM admin, Linux Sys Admin
    Location:
    Quebec City
    I do, but did not experience the same problems.
    I just thought maybe your entered the wrong Device type in your class...
    Aside from that, I don't know, sorry :(
     
  6. rallingham

    rallingham Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Sr. TSM Solutions Specialist
    Location:
    Greater Toronto Area Canada
    Lto3

    I seem to recall when testing TKLM (encryption) that LTO4 drives cannot encrypt LTO3 tapes. This may be an issue for you if you are using Drive Encryption. Or it may not be related to your issue at all. Have you tried turning off encryption and then running your process?
     
  7. GregE

    GregE Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    31
  8. Stephan

    Stephan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Storage / System Administrator (UNIX)
    Location:
    Great White North
    Thank you for the information. I will go ahead and give that redbook a look. I've also placed a support call with IBM...We'll see what they say.

    rallingham: I did notice that drive encryption is "allowed" in my config...Don't know if it would do anything by will try to change it to see...

    Thanks.
     

Share This Page