Alan, I am guessing that the operation you discribe also is writing the copypool tapes over a loooong wire between the tsm server and the remote library. In that case, there is no need to change the status of the copypool tapes to offsite. Since they stay in readwrite status, and the tsm server thinks they are onsite, which they are - onsite to the remote library - a reclaim of the copypool will use the copypool tapes as input. It is the status of offsite which causes the primary pool tapes to be used as input for sites that aren't fully 'hands-off' yet.
-- -------------------------- Bill Colwell C. S. Draper Lab Cambridge, Ma. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/10/02 at 02:43 PM, Lawrence Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >That's true, but with more interest in hands off operation, some sites are now >storing the copypool volumes in separate >libraries in different locations. TSM should at least provide for the option of >choosing to use the primary storage >pool or the copypool volume as the source for reclamation. >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/10/02 01:46PM >>> >Very often, the copy pool volumes are off site volumes. It would be quite >impractical to reclaim these volumes. By doing reclamation from the on-site >primary pool, you do not have to return the off-site volumes in order to do >reclamation. > Alan Davenport >Senior Storage Administrator >Selective Insurance >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(973) 948-1306 >-----Original Message----- >From: Lawrence Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:22 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Copypool reclamation >Can any explain to me the reasoning behind having the valid data from a >reclamation on a copypool volume having to be obtained from the primary >storage pool? >It seems to me that it would be much more efficient to copy the valid data >directly from the copypool volume being reclaimed to the target copypool >volume.
