Greetings, all. I'm trying to work out exactly how IBM thinks virtual volume reclamation is supposed to proceed, and also how we think it does in fact proceed. ;)
Noodling around in the docs and QuickFacts, I find that volumes of a devclass of type SERVER "may not be set to access=offsite", and experimentation confirms this. Such would lead me to the conclusion that SERVER devclass volumes would be reclaimed in a manner logically equivalent to local volumes, to wit a source virtual volume and a target virtual volume would both be mounted, the source read from and the target written to. This is also what Dave said in Oxford, and what I see happening on some of the servers. However, on one of them servers I observe reclamation proceeding in the 'offsite' manner, with a new virtual volume being built from (many!) mounts of primary volumes. I'm not sure how I can control this, but the difference is giving me the aggravations something fierce. I can see circumstances in which I might want to do things in either way, but optimizations in favor of one are a pain for the other. Any ideas? - Allen S. Rout
