>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:59:27 -0500, "Allen S. Rout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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. ;) So, I'm back to make recitation of my errors and oversights in this investigation. I'll quote the conclusion, for starters: virtual volumes in copy pools may never be marked access=offsite, but they are always reclaimed as though they were access=offsite. My initial confusion was grounded in my expectation that, since the virtual copy vols could not be -marked- offsite, that they would be reclaimed as onsite vols. The first stgpool I went to reclaim behaved in this manner: I started to reclaim a few volumes, and the process mounted a remote server vol, copied from Atlanta to Gainesville, and then back. So far, so good. But when I started doing this on other servers, I got the primary-volume-mount version. Aggravation; why was it different? Sadly for my documentation-reading purposes, I saw "Reclamation of copy storage pools...", and "Reclamations of volumes..." in the extremely useful info center. What I missed was that the latter read in full "Reclation of volumes with the device type of SERVER". D'oh again. Once I was nudged into that, my remaining problem was determining why the original reclamation had proceeded from the remote volume. Investigation established that I had some access=UNAVAILABLE primary volumes; the reclamation was being accomplished by reference to the available volumes, which were coincidentally the copies I had anticipated. - Allen S. Rout
