That's true, it does increase the probability that you will detect archive
readability problems.  But- it doesn't really prevent them from happening.
I am reaching the conclusion that for Archival data, at least, using COPY
pools is even more important than for backup pools.

At 12:38 PM 1/28/99 -0600, decook AT amoco DOT com wrote:
>     OK, my 2 cents worth...
>     BUT if you mix them... reclamation will (for a while until random
>     chance groups long term archives on a common tape) ensure the
>     readability of the archive (during the reclamation process) OR point
>     out that it can't be read :-(
>
>     AND this all depends heavily on the amount of traffic and your
>     collocation setting.
>
>     later
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Why seperate Backup and Archive Pools
>Author:  vkm (vkm AT CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL DOT EDU) at unix,mime
>Date:    1/28/99 10:32 AM
>
>
>At 12:26 PM 1/28/99 +0100, Stephan Rittmann wrote:
>>normaly ADSM has seperat pools for backup and archive. What are the reasons
>>for that. Can anybody give me some informations why I should seperat the
>>pools.
>
>Stephan,
>
>We keep them separate because we find our archive data to be much more
>static (unchanging) than our backup data.  By segregating the data to
>different tape pools, we are able to acheive much higher utilization of the
>archive tapes (95+%), than for our backup tapes.
>
>What I would like to be able to do is to segregate the dynamic backup data
>from the static backup data, to achieve similar increases in tape
>utilization for our backup data.
>
>..Paul
>
>