Its a lot of bother to be changing the mount retention down to zero
   willy nilly.
... joe.f.

Joseph A Faracchio,  Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley


On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Joel Fuhrman wrote:

> I'm using ACSLS (STK).  When I'm doing something like a simultaneous
> migration of 3 storage pools to 2 tape drives, the behavior I observed, in
> the past, is that when the first migration completes, it tape was not
> unmounted until the mount retention period expires.  Thus the third
> migration has to wait the mount retention period before it could get a tape.
> I get around this by reducing the mount retention to zero during those
> process that create tape queueing.  I will have to check if this behavior
> still exists in my current level.
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Alex Paschal wrote:
>
> > Joseph, Joel, out of curiosity, is there any chance are you using EXTERNAL
> > library types?
> >
> > I know TSM will dismount an idle volume if it needs a mountpoint in 3494's
> > as Kent has pointed out.  I think it may behave the same way with a SCSI
> > library type also.
> >
> > In fact, on a hunch, I just now checked my TSM 3.7 Admin Guide, Appendix A,
> > External Media Management Interface Description.  The valid return codes for
> > a Volume Mount Request are:
> >     SUCCESS
> >     DRIVE_ERROR
> >     LIBRARY_ERROR
> >     VOLUME_UNKNOWN
> >     VOLUME_UNAVAILABLE
> >     CANCELLED
> >     TIMED_OUT
> >     INTERNAL_ERROR
> > There is nothing that indicates waiting for a mount point.  That could
> > account for idle volumes not being dismounted; TSM doesn't know that the
> > External Library Manager is waiting for a mount point.
> >
> > Alex Paschal
> > Storage Administrator
> > Freightliner, LLC
> > (503) 745-6850 phone/vmail
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent J. Monthei [mailto:Kent_J_Monthei AT SBPHRD DOT COM]
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:20 PM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour
> >
> >
> > We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 3494 Libraries and have
> > observed behavior consistent with that described by Joseph in the original
> > email
> > - an idle mount will be immediately dismounted if/when there is another
> > mount
> > pending and no other drive is available.  However, we also recently dropped
> > the
> > mount retention from the default 60 minutes down to just 5 minutes.
> >
> > Under what scenarios (or rationale) does it make sense to force tapes to
> > remain
> > mounted more than 5 minutes after a client backup session has completed?
> >
> > -Kent M., GSK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > joelf AT cac.washington DOT edu on 05-Feb-2001 19:57
> >
> >
> >
> > Please respond to ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
> >
> > To:   ADSM-L
> > cc:    (bcc: Kent J Monthei/CIS/PHRD/SB_PLC)
> > Subject:  Re: tape mount retention behaviour
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it always worked this way.  At one time I was going to put in a
> > request to have two mount retention times.  One for when there are no
> > pending request for a drive and the other for when there are pending
> > request.
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Joe Faracchio wrote:
> >
> > > I recently upgraded from 3.1.2.20 to 3.7.2.0
> > > and notice a very annoying behaviour.
> > >
> > > The system keeps an idle tape mounted for the full retention period
> > > specified despite the pending mounts that are waiting.
> > >
> > > when / where will this be fixed???
> > >
> > > thanks ... joe.f.
> > >
> > > Joseph A Faracchio,  Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley
> > >
> >
>