Interesting. I hadn't considered using different libraries to solve this. It was a little unclear from the thread - does this require partitioning on the library side? I wasn't aware that two different libraries (presumably with two different paths) could share a single device special node.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:23:10PM -0600, Roger Deschner wrote: > It won't work. I tried and failed in a StorageTek SL500 library with > LTO4 and LTO5. Just like you are reporting, the LTO4 tapes would get > mounted in the LTO5 drives first, and then there was no free drive in > which to mount a LTO5 tape. I tried all kinds of tricks to make it work, > but it did not work. > > Furthermore, despite claims of compatibility, I found that there was a > much higher media error rate when using LTO4 tapes in LTO5 drives, > compared to using the same LTO4 tapes in LTO4 drives. These were HP > drives. > > The only way around it is to define two libraries in TSM, one consisting > of the LTO5 drives and tapes, and the other consisting of the LTO6 > drives and tapes. Hopefully your LTO5 and LTO6 tapes can be identified > by unique sequences of volsers, e.g. L50001 versus L60001, which will > greatly simplify TSM CHECKIN commands, because then you can use ranges > instead of specifying lists of individual volsers. To check tapes into > that mixed-media library I use something like VOLRANGE=L50000,L59999 on > the CHECKIN and LABEL commands to make sure the right tapes get checked > into the right TSM Library. Fortunately the different generations of > tape cartridges are different colors. > > You can read all about what I went through, and the good, helpful > recommendations from others on this list, by searching the ADSM-L > archives for "UN-mixing LTO-4 and LTO-5". Thanks again to Remco Post > and Wanda Prather for their help back then in 2012! > > Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rog...@uic.edu > ======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.===== > > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Grant Street wrote: > > >On 10/12/14 02:40, Skylar Thompson wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> We have two TSM 6.3.4.300 servers connected to a STK SL3000 with 8x LTO5 > >> drives, and 8x LTO6 drives. One of the TSM servers is the library manager, > >> and the other is a client. I'm seeing odd behavior when the client requests > >> mounts from the server. My understanding is that a mount request for a > >> volume will be placed preferentially in the least-capable drive for that > >> volume; that is, a LTO5 volume mounted for write will be placed in a LTO5 > >> drive if it's available, and in a LTO6 drive if no LTO5 drives are > >> available. > >> > >> What I'm seeing is that LTO5 volumes are ending up in LTO6 drives first, > >> even with no LTO5 drives in use at all. I've verified that all the LTO5 > >> drives and paths are online for both servers. > >> > >> I haven't played with MOUNTLIMIT yet, but I don't think it'll do any good > >> since I think that still depends on the mounts ending up in the > >> least-capable drives first. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> -- > >> -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > >> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > >> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > >> -- University of Washington School of Medicine > >might be a stab in the dark ..... try numbering the drives such that the > >LTO5's are first in the drive list or vice versa. > >That way when tsm "scans" for an available drive it will always try the > >LTO5's first. > > > >HTH > > > >Grant > > -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
