t;
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Paul,
It's clear to me that we disagree. I understand and accept the
inter-operating parameters and requirements of the 3494, and have
installed and/or written code residing on each attached host to only look
for tape
Here is the APAR covering the problem. I do not know when it was created.
APAR= IC33056 SER=IN INCORROUT
TSM 4.2.1 3494 CATEGORIES SCRATCH PRIVATE INSERT
Status: OPENClosed:
Apar Information:
RCOMP= 5698TSMAXTSM AIX SERVER RRE
tape. Unless there is a bug, the only way this can happen is a
Search=yes and a range specification that overlaps the other server.
-Original Message-
From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume
th [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Paul,
It's clear to me that we disagree. I understand and accept the
inter-operating parameters and requirements of the 3494, and have installed
and/or written co
An update:
The server was updated to 4.2.1.11, Atape to 7.0.3.0, atldd to latest.
Result:
I can still check-in tapes which are checked into another TSM server. TSM
ignores the category on the tape and just grabs the tape and changes the
category.
Orville L. Lantto
Datatrend Technologies, Inc
ED]>
03/19/02 11:00 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Allen,
I do not normally boast about my knowledge on something but in this area
of
this product I know it as well as the
f the 3590 platform, have
this library already installed and say why not.
-Original Message-
From: Allen Barth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
I stand by the statement that the 3494 volume claiming is
: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Allen Barth
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
I stand by the statement that the 3494 volume claiming is working as
designed.
I have a 3494 which for the last 6 years is used
Seay, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/19/02 03:03 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Actually, N
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
This falls under the old "Measure twice, cut once" rule. If you're sharing
a library and NOT doublechecking yourself, you're asking for trouble. Plain
and simple. Don't describe a "defect" to something that is
rrow of yesterday.
"Orville L.
Lantto" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Sent by: "ADSM:
Dist Stor
Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Orville L. Lantto
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
No, I tested with a verified scratch volume from Server A (had Server A's
scratch category, v
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Orville L. Lantto
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
No, I tested with a verified scratch volume from Server A (had Server A's
scratch category, verified with mtlib) and "stole" it directly
> It wasn't stolen. I have seen where the 3494 will eject a cart all on its
> own for various reasons. This action is not sent to TSM. Perhaps the
> operators saw the tape in the IO door and just pulled it out and put it
> back in without letting anyone know. Mine have done that several times,
203
F: 952-931-1293
C: 612-770-9166
Allen Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/18/02 10:09 AM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 V
DSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/15/02 04:43 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
The volume which was "stolen" was checked in to another TSM serv
SEV 1 with Tivoli on this. It is an integrity issue.
-Original Message-
From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
The volume which was "stolen" was checked in to another TSM s
M server this way.
-Original Message-
From: Orville L. Lantto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing
I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one
3494 library shared by four TSM Serv
TECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/15/02 03:36 PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
What are the categories used?
I would imagi
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 03/15/2002 04:15:06
PM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: 3494 Volume Stealing
Yes and
antto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing
I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one
3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly
configured with different
PROTECTED]
Subject: 3494 Volume Stealing
I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one
3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly
configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM
server to steal a volume that is checked in to a
I just tested a problem brought to me by one of my clients. They have one
3494 library shared by four TSM Servers. Using 4.2.1 TSM, properly
configured with different 3494 Categories, it is possible for one TSM
server to steal a volume that is checked in to another TSM server. This
behavior is
23 matches
Mail list logo