Ok, it is now confirmed (by me! :-) ) that it is a bug in TSM, it is there
in TSM 6.3.1.0 and 6.3.2.0
I just checked out 2 other voluems and moved them to vault status, this
went fine because the 2 volumes didn't drop to vault retrieve.
It works fine with the * wildcard as long as the volumes don't drop to
vault retrieve at the same instant.
ANR2017I Administrator admin issued command: MOVE DRMEDIA *
wherestate=courier tostate=vault wait=no source=dbs
ANR0984I Process 20 for MOVE DRMEDIA started in the BACKGROUND at 03:57:24
PM.
ANR0609I MOVE DRMEDIA started as process 20.
ANR0610I MOVE DRMEDIA started by admin as process 20.
ANR0405I Session 666 ended for administrator admin (Linux x86-64).
ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume 000536L3 was moved from COURIER state to
VAULT.
ANR0407I Session 667 started for administrator admin (Linux x86-64) (Tcp/Ip
172.28.15.28(54949)).
ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume 000545L3 was moved from COURIER state to
VAULT.
ANR6682I MOVE DRMEDIA command ended: 2 volumes processed.
ANR0611I MOVE DRMEDIA started by admin as process 20 has ended.
ANR0987I Process 20 for MOVE DRMEDIA running in the BACKGROUND processed 2
items with a completion state of SUCCESS at 03:57:25 PM.
Regards,
Stefan
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Stefan Folkerts
<stefan.folkerts AT gmail DOT com>wrote:
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> The volumes are already checked out and not in the library, TSM knows this
> and labels them as courier volumes.
> I want to check the volumes into the vault and TSM starts an operation to
> checkout the volumes...what is that about? :-)
>
> When I moved the volumes without the * to vault it works just file, they
> jumped directly to vault retrieve but that is not a problem I have a 2 day
> retention on the files on this test server.
>
> I think it is a bug in TSM that comes to light when you move from courier
> to vault with a wildcard but the volume wants to jump to vault retrieve
> right away, that seems to trigger DRM into launching an tape checkout
> operation.
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Rick Adamson <RickAdamson AT winn-dixie DOT
> com>wrote:
>
>> Stephan
>> Maybe I'm confused (wouldn't be the first time).... but.
>> It appears that TSM believes that the volumes are NOT in the library,
>> hence the Access=*Offsite*.
>>
>> I would think that you would need to use the "remove=no" option, which
>> keeps TSM from sending the request for removal to the library.
>> For example:
>>
>> Move drmedia * wherestate=courier source=dbs remove=no tostate=vault
>>
>>
>> ~Rick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
>> Of
>> Stefan Folkerts
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:27 AM
>> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>> Subject: [ADSM-L] move drmedia issue? I can't see what I am missing here.
>>
>> I can't wrap my head around what is happing here, maybe you guy's can
>> help me little. :-)
>>
>> I want to move two volumes from courier to vault, this is what happens.
>>
>> ===================================================
>>
>> tsm: TSMSRV>q drmedia source=dbs
>>
>> Volume Name State Last Update
>> Automated
>> Date/Time LibName
>> ---------------- ----------------- -------------------
>> ----------------
>> *000002L3* Courier 10/15/12 10:42:34
>> *000003L3 * Courier 10/15/12 10:42:34
>> 000536L3 Mountable 10/18/12 05:06:07 LTOLIB
>> 000535L3 Courier 10/15/12 10:45:10
>>
>> tsm: TSMSRV>
>>
>>
>> MOVE DRMEDIA * wherestate=courier tostate=vault source=dbs
>>
>> ANR6696I MOVE DRMEDIA: *CHECKOUT LIBVOLUME* for volume *000002L3* in
>> library LTOLIB starting.
>> ANR6696I MOVE DRMEDIA: *CHECKOUT LIBVOLUME* for volume *000003L3* in
>> library LTOLIB starting.
>> ===================================================
>>
>> Why does he want to do a checkout library volume, the volumes are listed
>> as offsite;
>>
>> ===================================================
>>
>> Volume Name: 000002L3
>> Storage Pool Name: COPYPOOL
>> Device Class Name: LTOCLASS
>> Estimated Capacity: 0.0 M
>> Scaled Capacity Applied:
>> Pct Util: 0.0
>> Volume Status: Empty
>> Access: *Offsite*
>> Pct. Reclaimable Space: 0.0
>> Scratch Volume?: Yes
>> In Error State?: No
>> Number of Writable Sides: 1
>> Number of Times Mounted: 34
>> Write Pass Number: 1
>> Approx. Date Last Written: 10/15/12 05:04:11
>> Approx. Date Last Read: 08/28/12 07:05:52
>> Date Became Pending:
>> Number of Write Errors: 0
>> Number of Read Errors: 0
>> Volume Location: COURIER
>> Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No
>> Last Update by (administrator): admin
>> Last Update Date/Time: 10/15/12 10:42:34
>> Begin Reclaim Period:
>> End Reclaim Period:
>> Drive Encryption Key Manager: None
>> Logical Block Protected: No
>>
>>
>>
>> Volume Name: 000003L3
>> Storage Pool Name: COPYPOOL
>> Device Class Name: LTOCLASS
>> Estimated Capacity: 0.0 M
>> Scaled Capacity Applied:
>> Pct Util: 0.0
>> Volume Status: Empty
>> Access: *Offsite*
>> Pct. Reclaimable Space: 0.0
>> Scratch Volume?: Yes
>> In Error State?: No
>> Number of Writable Sides: 1
>> Number of Times Mounted: 1
>> Write Pass Number: 1
>> Approx. Date Last Written: 08/28/12 08:14:12
>> Approx. Date Last Read: 08/28/12 07:06:38
>> Date Became Pending:
>> Number of Write Errors: 0
>> Number of Read Errors: 0
>> Volume Location: COURIER
>> Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No
>> Last Update by (administrator): admin
>> Last Update Date/Time: 10/15/12 10:42:34
>> Begin Reclaim Period:
>> End Reclaim Period:
>> Drive Encryption Key Manager: None
>> Logical Block Protected: No
>> ===================================================
>>
>> So what happens is that the move drmedia proces fails with this error;
>>
>> ===================================================
>> ANR0985I Process 11 for MOVE DRMEDIA running in the BACKGROUND completed
>> with completion state FAILURE at 10:07:35 AM.
>> ANR1893E Process 11 for MOVE DRMEDIA completed with a completion state of
>> FAILURE.
>> ===================================================
>>
>> q libv / show slots, nothing shows these volumes as being in the library.
>> Running TSM 6.3.2.0 and before today 6.3.1.0 on Linux, same "issue" on
>> that level.
>> I might very well be missing something but I am not seeing it at the
>> moment, any help is welcome. :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>
>
|