Clearly, these people weren't adherents to the principle that the best errpt is 
an empty errpt. 

OK, thanks, everyone. I guess I'll need to learn to love it as it is. I'll 
chalk it up to expecting too much, such as that the ALMS wouldn't try so hard 
to get my attention unless it had something meaningful to say. 

Nick

On Sep 13, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "Ehresman,David E." <deehre01 AT LOUISVILLE DOT 
EDU> wrote:

> My recollection is that when the 3584 was set up autoclean the drives, it 
> caused one or two entries in the errpt when it did a drive clean.
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Nick Laflamme
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:08 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] 3584 ALMS and uncleaned drives
> 
> After three years in a data center in which actual physical tapes were
> forbidden, I'm now doing penance in a smaller data center using a
> honest-to-god 3584 with ALMS.
> 
> To my surprise, I'm seeing entries in an AIX 6.1 error report that some of
> my tape drives need cleaning, and I'm finding corresponding ANR8914I
> messages in my activity log. This makes me fear that the ALMS automated
> cleaning isn't happening. (The first alternate proposal is that I'm
> expecting too much.)
> 
> If it matters, we're using 3592 drives, not LTO drives. Also, TSM 6.2 on
> AIX 6.1.
> 
> Is this a sign that we need to update our 3584 microcode? Is there some
> interaction between the 3584 and AIX that prompts the 3584 to notify AIX
> instead of just quietly cleaning the drive?
> 
> (I'm so happy that DataDomain's 3584 emulation didn't strive to match these
> nuances....)
> 
> Nick