MIchael Leone wrote:
> Assuming 2 pools, and 8 tape drives - I want to limit the number of 
> concurrent drives that any 1 pool can use to 5. I thought setting the 
> library max parallelism to 5 would accomplish that for me. But that turns 
> out not to be the case.

True. Library parallelism is about how many jukebox operations can run
simultaneously, such as mounts, unmounts, labelling operations etc.

 I've re-read about client, server and savegrp
> paralleism, but they all seem to refer to numbers of savesets running at 
> the same time. But I want to limit the max number of devices that a pool 
> can write to at any one time.; I'm not so worried about the number of 
> savesets running at the same time.

The closest you will get to this is savegrp parallelism. This is usually
 enough to control the sessions in use.

> 
> I could, of course, assign specific tape drives to specific pools, But I 
> thought for sure there was a way to do without hard-coding specific drives 
> to specific pools. 
> 
> Pointer, anyone?
> 

I always try to avoid assigning drives to pools. It is very easy to find
yourself in a situation where drives are being under-utilised, and once
you start down this road of assigning drives to pools you can't really
stop. You end up with an environment that is difficult to manage. This
applies to both small and very large environments.

I also avoid creating lots of pools. In general I would only create a
new pool to accommodate a new retention policy or a specific off site
requirement. There are a few special cases where it can be useful, but I
would always want to justify a new pool to myself.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER