Hi Kurt, My advice should be going on using backup stg and reclaim stg instead of move data. Just use scratch volumes LTO generation y and do not checkin LTO generation x back from the vault. You'll still may have to use move data for offsite volumes with a low reclaim percentage.
Time after time, you'll may be able to lower the reclaim percentage Note that you can easily estimate the number of tape by counting the tapes witch have a determined reclaim_pct. You can also control the period and duration of the reclaim process. Hope this help. Regards, Erwann ----- Mail original ----- De: "BEYERS Kurt" <kurt.bey...@vrt.be> À: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Août 2012 10:09:15 Objet: [ADSM-L] migrating tape storage pools Good morning, We are in the process of migrating several tape storage pools, both primary and copy, from LTO generation x to LTO generation y. It is easy for primary storage pools, since the incremental backup mechanism is taking all the primary storage pools in scope: * Redirect the backups to an LTO_Y storage pool * Migrate in the background the LTO_X storage pool to the LTO_Y with a duration of x minutes However this does not work for copy storage pools since there is a valid reason why a backup would be kept in multiple copy storage pool volumes. But this implies that the copy storage pool from generation LTO_Y needs to be rebuild from scratch. Which is time consuming and expensive (more tape volumes, more slots,more offsite volumes ....). Are there really no other workarounds available? An option might be that given the fact we use dedicated device classes for each sequential storage pool and that multiple libraries will be or are defined for each LTO generation: * A DRM volume is linked to a copy storage pool * The copy storage pool is linked to a device class * Hence change the library in the device class from LTO_X to LTO_Y for the copy storage pool Would this workaround work? Then I could perform a daily move data in the background to get rid from the LTO_X copy storage pool volumes. Will test it myself of course. It would be great too if IBM could consider introducing the concept of a 'copy storage pool group' consisting of multiple copy storage pools that contains only 1 backup of the item. Perhaps I should raise an RFC for it if other TSM users find it also a good feature. So please provide me some feedback. Thanks in advance! Regards, Kurt *** Disclaimer *** Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie Auguste Reyerslaan 52, 1043 Brussel nv van publiek recht BTW BE 0244.142.664 RPR Brussel http://www.vrt.be/gebruiksvoorwaarden
