Zoltan, What level of microcode did you upgrade to? We have an installation of 4 of these drives scheduled in two weeks.
thanks, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: > Sounds a lot like what I was seeing when we got our "new to us" 3590E1A > drives. > > The problem was the microcode level. It was way behind and caused all > kinds of grief. 2/3 of our new tapes were unlabelable. The drive would > load the tape and spin for ever until it timed out. > > Once the microcode/firmware was upgraded, problems went away. Went back > and relabeled tapes that previously were unlabelable. > > Thomas Denier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 03/03/2003 03:30 PM > Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Errors on 3590 K tapes > > We are running a 4.2.3.2 TSM server under OS/390. We have four 3590 tape > drives that were and are working well with 3590 J tapes (the ones with > 20 GB capacity without compression). We are in the process of migrating > our onsite storage pools to 3590 K tapes (the ones with 40 GB capacity > without compression). So far we have had seven of the new tapes forced > read-only because of I/O errors. We have one full 3590 K tape, and > seventeen in 'FILLING' status that have not so far had any I/O errors. > The errors have been spread across at least three of the tape drives. > In most cases, there is an OS/390 message like the following: > > IOS071I 0C62,1D,ADSM, MISSING CHANNEL AND DEVICE END > > and a TSM message like the following: > > ANR5351E Error reading BlockID on device 0C62. > > Do 3590 K tapes typically suffer the kind of infant mortality rate > we are seeing? -- Jim Kirkman AIS - Systems UNC-Chapel Hill 966-5884
