Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for
each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout
procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live
with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us
more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is
a defect.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +0000, Prather, Wanda wrote:
> I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one 
> device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on 
> Windows).
>
> What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, 
> so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and 
> storage pools to use going forward.
>
>
> Wanda Prather
> TSM Consultant
> ICF International Cybersecurity Division
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Skylar Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing 
> environment
>
> Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this.
> It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on 
> the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably 
> with two different paths) could share a single device special node.
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote:
> > It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with
> > LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get
> > mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in
> > which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it
> > work, but it did not work.
> >
> > Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a
> > much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives,
> > compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP
> > drives.
> >
> > The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one
> > consisting of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of
> > the LTO6 drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be
> > identified by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001,
> > which will greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can
> > use ranges instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check
> > tapes into that mixed-media library I use something like
> > VOLRANGE=L50000,L59999 on the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure
> > the right tapes get checked into the right TSM Library. Fortunately
> > the different generations of tape cartridges are different colors.
> >
> > You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful
> > recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L
> > archives for "UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5". Thanks again to Remco Post
> > and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012!
> >
> > Roger Deschner      University of Illinois at Chicago     rogerd AT uic DOT 
> > edu
> > ======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape
> > somewhere.=====
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote:
> >
> > >On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote:
> > >> Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x
> > >> LTO5 drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the
> > >> library manager, and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior
> > >> when the client requests mounts from the server. My understanding
> > >> is that a mount request for a volume will be placed preferentially
> > >> in the least-capable drive for that volume; that is, a LTO5 volume
> > >> mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 drive if it's available,
> > >> and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are available.
> > >>
> > >> What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives
> > >> first, even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that
> > >> all the LTO5 drives and paths are online for both servers.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do
> > >> any good since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up
> > >> in the least-capable drives first.
> > >>
> > >> Any thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> > >> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> > >> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> > >> -- University of Washington School of Medicine
> > >might be a stab in the dark ..... try numbering the drives such that
> > >the LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa.
> > >That way when tsm "scans" for an available drive it will always try
> > >the LTO5's first.
> > >
> > >HTH
> > >
> > >Grant
> > >
>
> --
> -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> -- University of Washington School of Medicine

--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine