Ditto! ADSM doesn't know or care what physical slot is used.
> ----------
> From: Jennifer Davis[SMTP:jedavis AT dfw DOT net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 11:13 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
> Subject: Re: Using separate tape drives for stgpools.
>
> John,
>
> Don't want to steal Wanda's limelight, but since there is not reply
> yet.......
>
> This is because ADSM does not care what physical slot a tape is in .... it
> relies on the library to keep track of this for it.
>
> Since the DEVCLASS defines a DEVTYPE, like DLT, which is tied to the
> LIBRARY definition, and the LIBRARY definition is tied to the DEFINE DRIVE
> command, when you run CHECKIN LIBVOL (which requires a libraryname) ADSM
> goes through the aforementioned "ties" and asks the library for candidates
> only in that category of tape. The library determines where it sits
> (slotwise) and loads it up for ADSM.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> At 04:13 PM 6/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >Wanda,
> >
> >How do the two "virtual" libraries keep track of which tape slots they
> own
> >for things like checkin? I can understand how, once a tape is in a slot
> >in the library, that ADSM would identify it in a particular device class
> and
> >that only compatable drives would be used to load that tape, but how
> >do you avoid checkin collisions?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >John Sorensen
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Prather, Wanda [SMTP:PrathW1 AT CENTRAL.SSD.JHUAPL DOT EDU]
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:36 PM
> >To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >Subject: Re: Using separate tape drives for stgpools.
> >
> >We have an STK 9710 with 5 DLT drives and 3 3490 drives in it.
> >The way that works is to create two separate LIBRARY definitions.
> >The fact that they are within the same physical box doesn't bother ADSM
> at
> >all.
> >
> >So you create 1 library, and define drives to it, then create another
> >library and define drives to it.
> >
> >And you define two devclasses, one pointing to each library, and point
> your
> >COPY pool at whichever one you want.
> >
> >And it works fine. So you could separate your drives that way if you are
> >trying to guarantee that the copy pool drives are never used for primary
> >tapes, etc. The only drawback is that then you have to check in tapes
> >separately to each library.
> >
> >So the answer is it will work, but I think Dwight's solution of just
> setting
> >appropriate mount limits is better!
> >
> >===============================================================
> >Wanda Prather
> >Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
> >443-778-8769
> >wanda_prather AT jhuapl DOT edu
> >
> >"Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."
> > - Scott Adams/Dilbert
> >===============================================================
> >
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Amerman, Anthony S.[SMTP:ASAmerman AT leggmason DOT com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 4:14 PM
> >> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
> >> Subject: Using separate tape drives for stgpools.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> I want to know if anyone has tried this and if it can work or not...
> >> We have 6 drives in our STK9714 library, I want to know if I can
> assign
> >> 2 of the 6 tape drives to be used for making an offsite copy pool. So
> >> the normal scheduled backups are done on 4 of the drives and the
> offsite
> >> copy pool is made with the other 2.
> >> Would this work?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Shane
> >>
> >>
> >> Anthony Shane Amerman
> >> Legg Mason, Corporate Technology
> >> UNIX Systems Engineer
> >> 410-454-3081 25th Floor
> >
> >
>
|