Hmm... Another "new library definition" vote.
In my case, I will be upgrading 1/2 of the drives to 3592,
migrating all the data to the new format and then upgrading the rest of
the 3590s. In the end, it will all look the same except I have new
drives.
Won't I be OK having the 3590 and 3592 drives in the same
scratch and private categories? The TSM server is smart enough to know
which scratch tapes can go in which drives... No? Is that a wrong
assumption on my part?
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Siegle
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Prather, Wanda wrote:
> We have a 3494 with 3 3590 tape drives, TSM 5.2.2 on AIX 5.
>
> We will be adding 5 new 3592 tape drives to the 3494, also for use
> with TSM.
>
> To implement those new 3592 tape drives with TSM, is it sufficient to
> just define new drives & device classes pointing to the same TSM
> library definition?
>
Hi Wanda,
I defined a new library definition with the same device
name(/dev/lmcpX) because I wanted the volume categories to be different.
Then I defined the devclass/drive/path stuff..
We also had to buy a new LM to support the drives.
-Jonathan
