Could someone please remove me from this list.  I've been on it for quite
some time and don't remember how that happen.  Most of the stuff you guys
talk about is way way outside my wheelhouse.  Thank you for your time and
attention to this matter.



Pax et bonum,

Abp William Higginbotham, OSB
Patriarch
The Church of Ireland in North America

Phone:  910 653 3388

and

Pastor
St. Jude's Free Catholic Church
http://stjudefreecatholic.us/

"You can do no great things, only small things with great love."  St
Theresa of Calcutta

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT u.washington DOT 
edu>
wrote:

> I got bogged down last week with other stuff, but I have PMR 50613,550,000
> open now. I'll keep folks posted on developments on it.
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:02:10AM +1100, Grant Street wrote:
> > Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes
> > a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie
> > me)  can vote for it?
> >
> > Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something
> > that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to
> > use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our
> > mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using
> > a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Grant
> >
> >    On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote:
> > > 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
>
> --
> -- 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
>