Ok, it is now confirmed (by me! :-) ) that it is a bug in TSM, it is there in TSM 6.3.1.0 and 6.3.2.0
I just checked out 2 other voluems and moved them to vault status, this went fine because the 2 volumes didn't drop to vault retrieve. It works fine with the * wildcard as long as the volumes don't drop to vault retrieve at the same instant. ANR2017I Administrator admin issued command: MOVE DRMEDIA * wherestate=courier tostate=vault wait=no source=dbs ANR0984I Process 20 for MOVE DRMEDIA started in the BACKGROUND at 03:57:24 PM. ANR0609I MOVE DRMEDIA started as process 20. ANR0610I MOVE DRMEDIA started by admin as process 20. ANR0405I Session 666 ended for administrator admin (Linux x86-64). ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume 000536L3 was moved from COURIER state to VAULT. ANR0407I Session 667 started for administrator admin (Linux x86-64) (Tcp/Ip 172.28.15.28(54949)). ANR6683I MOVE DRMEDIA: Volume 000545L3 was moved from COURIER state to VAULT. ANR6682I MOVE DRMEDIA command ended: 2 volumes processed. ANR0611I MOVE DRMEDIA started by admin as process 20 has ended. ANR0987I Process 20 for MOVE DRMEDIA running in the BACKGROUND processed 2 items with a completion state of SUCCESS at 03:57:25 PM. Regards, Stefan On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Stefan Folkerts <stefan.folke...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Hi Rick, > > The volumes are already checked out and not in the library, TSM knows this > and labels them as courier volumes. > I want to check the volumes into the vault and TSM starts an operation to > checkout the volumes...what is that about? :-) > > When I moved the volumes without the * to vault it works just file, they > jumped directly to vault retrieve but that is not a problem I have a 2 day > retention on the files on this test server. > > I think it is a bug in TSM that comes to light when you move from courier > to vault with a wildcard but the volume wants to jump to vault retrieve > right away, that seems to trigger DRM into launching an tape checkout > operation. > > Thanks for the reply. > > Stefan > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Rick Adamson > <rickadam...@winn-dixie.com>wrote: > >> Stephan >> Maybe I'm confused (wouldn't be the first time).... but. >> It appears that TSM believes that the volumes are NOT in the library, >> hence the Access=*Offsite*. >> >> I would think that you would need to use the "remove=no" option, which >> keeps TSM from sending the request for removal to the library. >> For example: >> >> Move drmedia * wherestate=courier source=dbs remove=no tostate=vault >> >> >> ~Rick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of >> Stefan Folkerts >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:27 AM >> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU >> Subject: [ADSM-L] move drmedia issue? I can't see what I am missing here. >> >> I can't wrap my head around what is happing here, maybe you guy's can >> help me little. :-) >> >> I want to move two volumes from courier to vault, this is what happens. >> >> =================================================== >> >> tsm: TSMSRV>q drmedia source=dbs >> >> Volume Name State Last Update >> Automated >> Date/Time LibName >> ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- >> ---------------- >> *000002L3* Courier 10/15/12 10:42:34 >> *000003L3 * Courier 10/15/12 10:42:34 >> 000536L3 Mountable 10/18/12 05:06:07 LTOLIB >> 000535L3 Courier 10/15/12 10:45:10 >> >> tsm: TSMSRV> >> >> >> MOVE DRMEDIA * wherestate=courier tostate=vault source=dbs >> >> ANR6696I MOVE DRMEDIA: *CHECKOUT LIBVOLUME* for volume *000002L3* in >> library LTOLIB starting. >> ANR6696I MOVE DRMEDIA: *CHECKOUT LIBVOLUME* for volume *000003L3* in >> library LTOLIB starting. >> =================================================== >> >> Why does he want to do a checkout library volume, the volumes are listed >> as offsite; >> >> =================================================== >> >> Volume Name: 000002L3 >> Storage Pool Name: COPYPOOL >> Device Class Name: LTOCLASS >> Estimated Capacity: 0.0 M >> Scaled Capacity Applied: >> Pct Util: 0.0 >> Volume Status: Empty >> Access: *Offsite* >> Pct. Reclaimable Space: 0.0 >> Scratch Volume?: Yes >> In Error State?: No >> Number of Writable Sides: 1 >> Number of Times Mounted: 34 >> Write Pass Number: 1 >> Approx. Date Last Written: 10/15/12 05:04:11 >> Approx. Date Last Read: 08/28/12 07:05:52 >> Date Became Pending: >> Number of Write Errors: 0 >> Number of Read Errors: 0 >> Volume Location: COURIER >> Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No >> Last Update by (administrator): admin >> Last Update Date/Time: 10/15/12 10:42:34 >> Begin Reclaim Period: >> End Reclaim Period: >> Drive Encryption Key Manager: None >> Logical Block Protected: No >> >> >> >> Volume Name: 000003L3 >> Storage Pool Name: COPYPOOL >> Device Class Name: LTOCLASS >> Estimated Capacity: 0.0 M >> Scaled Capacity Applied: >> Pct Util: 0.0 >> Volume Status: Empty >> Access: *Offsite* >> Pct. Reclaimable Space: 0.0 >> Scratch Volume?: Yes >> In Error State?: No >> Number of Writable Sides: 1 >> Number of Times Mounted: 1 >> Write Pass Number: 1 >> Approx. Date Last Written: 08/28/12 08:14:12 >> Approx. Date Last Read: 08/28/12 07:06:38 >> Date Became Pending: >> Number of Write Errors: 0 >> Number of Read Errors: 0 >> Volume Location: COURIER >> Volume is MVS Lanfree Capable : No >> Last Update by (administrator): admin >> Last Update Date/Time: 10/15/12 10:42:34 >> Begin Reclaim Period: >> End Reclaim Period: >> Drive Encryption Key Manager: None >> Logical Block Protected: No >> =================================================== >> >> So what happens is that the move drmedia proces fails with this error; >> >> =================================================== >> ANR0985I Process 11 for MOVE DRMEDIA running in the BACKGROUND completed >> with completion state FAILURE at 10:07:35 AM. >> ANR1893E Process 11 for MOVE DRMEDIA completed with a completion state of >> FAILURE. >> =================================================== >> >> q libv / show slots, nothing shows these volumes as being in the library. >> Running TSM 6.3.2.0 and before today 6.3.1.0 on Linux, same "issue" on >> that level. >> I might very well be missing something but I am not seeing it at the >> moment, any help is welcome. :-) >> >> Regards, >> Stefan >> > >
