ADSM-L

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-07 20:48:04
Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour
From: Joe Faracchio <brother AT SOCRATES.BERKELEY DOT EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:49:39 -0800
thanks.

IBM says the same, go to 3.7.4 or 4.1 and upgrade Atape to .50 (?)
I wanted to confirm this by getting theirs and your comments.
We are on a 3466 and its harder to go to a new level because
3466's are supposed to be maintained by IBM but they say the only do
the 'major' upgrades (EC's kinda like hardware maintenance) and my
management doesn't want me spending time on the learning curve.  sigh.

.. joe.f.

Its a shame.  The previous upgrade was to 3.1.2.0 and the CE put 3.1.2.20
on top of it because of know problems with anything prior.  I didn't get
so lucky the next time.  Even though the readme says avoid 3.7.2 with
3494's ...!!!

Joseph A Faracchio,  Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley


On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Sheelagh Treweek wrote:

> Joe,  Why don't you try 3.7.4.0 the latest 3.7 version?
> I believe you won't see this behaviour at that version,
> but like 3.1.  I'm not sure there was an APAR but I do
> think I observerd this at early 3.7 versions.
>
> Regards, Sheelagh
> --
>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:13:13 -0800
> >From: Joe Faracchio <brother AT SOCRATES.BERKELEY DOT EDU>
> >Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour
> >To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> <... snipped...>
>
> >Now with 3.7.2 I'm not seeing this 'nice' behaviour but the now the tape
> >sits there blockin another request until the full mount retention expires.
> >This is inefficient in a 2 drive system.
>
> <... snipped...>
>
> Sheelagh Treweek
> Oxford University Computing Services
> Email: sheelagh.treweek AT oucs.ox.ac DOT uk
> Phone: +44 (0)1865 273205 Fax:-273275
>
>
>