ADSM-L

3494/adsm questions

1996-08-11 18:33:57
Subject: 3494/adsm questions
From: Diane Ashby <Diane.Ashby AT TORO DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 17:33:57 -0500
We installed a 3494 this weekend (AIX 4.1.3., ADSM 2.1.0.8),
moving our 4 standalone 3590s into it.  Aside from the fact that
we had the wrong kind of bar code label attached to all our tapes
and had to insert them all as unlabeled tapes, we're
experiencing some other problems I'm hoping some of you can
help with:

--we used the default categories of 300/301 for private/scratch,
respectively, when we defined our 3494lib library, i.e., we didn't
respectively, when we defined our 3494lib library, i.e., we didn't
specify category numbers;
--we checked scratch volumes in ok as long as we used
checkl=no (since our volumes were all unlabeled to the 3494),
checkl=no (since our volumes were all unlabeled to the 3494),
but volumes checked in that way were rejected for use: "no
scratch volumes available"; these displayed through mtlib with a
category of 012D and status (?) of 04;
--we also found that if we used mtlib to change the category of
012D 04 to 012E 04 these volumes would become usable
012D 04 to 012E 04 these volumes would become usable
scratch volumes;
--the catch here is that any volumes with status=04 (if "status" is
what those 2 digits mean) would fail an ADSM audit and be
what those 2 digits mean) would fail an ADSM audit and be
deleted from the database, i.e., anytime we need to restart
ADSM;
--we found, however, that if we checked volumes in as private
(mtlib display 012C 00) and then deleted them, they were
(mtlib display 012C 00) and then deleted them, they were
accepted as scratch volumes, and now their mtlib display was
012E 00.

This leaves us with some unattractive choices.  Here are our
questions:
1. Does anyone know where we can find detailed explanation of
the output fields from mtlib commands and how ADSM (or the
3494) is setting them?
2. Why is ADSM recognizing 012E as our scratch category
instead of the default which, not specified, should have been
012D?
3. Have others on this list moved a functioning ADSM system
with standalone 3590s and their volumes to a 3494? results?
4. Will all these problems disappear when we apply the correct
labels?  (It doesn't seem so.)
--Diane
diane.ashby AT toro DOT com
diane.ashby AT toro DOT com
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>