Good to know. Unfortunately, while we have discrete barcode ranges for each media type, it would be a big change for our checkin/checkout procedures so I don't know that we'll be able to go that route. We'll live with it for now, and file a PMR with IBM if it does start impacting us more. Based on the documentation, it does seem like the current behavior is a defect.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +0000, Prather, Wanda wrote: > I've never had a problem defining multiple TSM (logical) libraries on one > device address (but I can't say I've tried it since 6.2, and that was on > Windows). > > What you can't do is have one device class pointing to 2 different libraries, > so you'll also have to do some juggling there, create some new devclasses and > storage pools to use going forward. > > > Wanda Prather > TSM Consultant > ICF International Cybersecurity Division > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > Skylar Thompson > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:15 AM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing > environment > > 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 -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
