Hello Mark,
IBM has decided shortly after introducing the Copy-Containerpools to handle
them not the same way as legacy containerpools, but like legacy primary pools.
Thus said, you can't make them OFFSITE, and thus you can't use the benefites
of DRM. Handle them like primary storagepool volumes with regard to volumes
taken out of the library, e.g. UNAVAILABLE instead of OFFSITE.
--
Michael Prix
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 10:25 +0200, Mark Beta wrote:
> Is there anyone who has encountered this problem over me?
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Mark Beta <markb3t4 AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > With IBM Spectrum Protect Version 7.1.7 and later, you can protect
> > directory-container storage pools by copying the data to container-copy
> > storage pools, where the data is stored on tape volumes.
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEQVQ_8.1.0/srv
> > .admin/t_contcp_stgpool_protect.html
> >
> > But the question is, when i have a spectrum protect with NOT extended
> > edition license, how i can rotate tape volumes offsite without using DRM
> > that is not included in the license?
> >
> > Knowledge center (link above) says:
> >
> > "If DRM is not configured, you must do so or USE AN ALTERNATE METHOD TO
> > ROTATE TAPES OFFSITE"
> > If i try to rotate offsite like legacy copy storage pool, updating the
> > volume access and location, for scripting tape rotation, i get:
> > ANR2117E UPDATE VOLUME: Access mode for volume 000001L7 cannot be changed
> > to "offsite" - volume either does not belong to a copy storage pool or
> > from
> > a device class of DEVTYPE=SERVER.
> > ANR2212I UPDATE VOLUME: No volumes updated.
> >
> > The volume was checked out from the library, but the access is
> > "readwrite".
> > The next "protect stgpool type=local" the volume probably will be
> > attempted to access, and will be put in unavailable.
> > Butreclamation will be effective and the volume will be reclaimed and
> > "scratched" So that I can bring it back to free when it reaches the empty
> > state?
> >
> > I can not understand how it may be mandatory to have DRM.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Mark
> >
|
