Wanda - good to hear from you. Thanks for the reply - sounds good. The other thing we are considering is setting the migration pool for the old pool to go to the VSM as well, to also help with the movement of the old data.
I will indeed go check out the adsm.org site. Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Prather, Wanda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:55 AM To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: HI JERRY! Good to hear from you. 1) If you search the archives at search.adsm.org for "VTS", you will find lots of discussions on the pros and cons of using virtual tape with TSM. 2) This is the coold part. What you do is 1) create your new device class 2) create a new sequential storage pool that uses the new devclass 3) update your diskpool so that "NEXTSTGPOOL" points to the new seq pool The next time migation occurs, you will be sending NEW data to the VTS. The old data will be left sitting as is, on your cartridge devices. You can leave that data alone until it naturally expires, or, as you have time, do MOVE DATA on the old cartridges and point them to the new pool. There is no rush to get that done - if a client tries to restore files, and it has some in the old pool and some in the new, NO PROBLEM. TSM copes! It just calls for its tape mounts on the old devices or the new devices, as needed. -----Original Message----- From: Lawson, Jerry W (ETSD, IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Date: March 13, 2003 Time: 9:40 AM From: Jerry Lawson The Hartford Insurance Group 860 547-2960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - It is interesting how in Data Processing, once you are associated with a product, people keep asking you questions about it, even though you no longer have a direct relationship. At least it's that way in my shop - I am (and always will be) the ADSM/TSM guy. Not that it's a bad thing, but sometimes the questions get a bit deep. We are thinking about migrating our primary tape storage pool from cartridge devices to an STK Virtual Tape device (This is a Big Iron based system). It seems to me to be a doable thing - I'm a little concerned about reclamation of the virtual volumes, but other than that, it's a positive move for us. I have two questions, though... 1. Has anyone else done this, and what have your experiences been? 2. The migration from the physical tape to the virtual tape pool has caused us to think. We could just change the devclass unit type, but then all of the current tapes would be incompatible - we would have the OS trying to mount the tape on a disk device. Not good. A better approach seems to be to create a new devclass, The question becomes where do we show the relationship to the new devclass. Can we change the storage pool definition to point to the new devclass, or do we have to create a new Storage Pool as well, and then change the copy group definitions to point to the new pool? I've been away from this too long! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Jerry W. Lawson Specialist, Infrastructure Support Center Enterprise Technology Services Company 690 Asylum Ave., NP2-5 Hartford, CT 06115 (860) 547-2960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
