could it be that aggregates in the primary pool have gone through reclamation processing and thus purged expired space out of the aggregate thus reducing the data in the primary pool but not the copy pool ????????? Try looking at the percent logical of each pool, doesn't the percent logical indicate how much data could be reclaimed through the rebuild of aggregates (in an inverse sort of way...) Dwight E. Cook Systems Management Integration Professional, Advanced Integrated Storage Management TSM Administration (918) 925-8045 Andy Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NET.ORG> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Copypool Occupancy Question Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 03/17/2004 11:08 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" I created a little script to compare the occupancy of the onsite tape pool (backcart) and copy pool (copy3592). Here is the script: select sum(physical_mb)/1024 as "BACKCART GB" from occupancy where stgpool_name='BACKCART' select sum(physical_mb)/1024 as "COPY3592 GB" from occupancy where stgpool_name='COPY3592' Pretty simple, but I get these results: tsm: TSMI>run stgcomp BACKCART GB --------------------------------- 16254.37 COPY3592 GB --------------------------------- 16296.24 I cannot figure out why the copypool would ever have more data in it than the primary pool. Any ideas? It's not really a big thing, but I was trying to figure out how to get an estimate of how much needs to be copied. Thanks for any information.
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
<<inline: pic27792.gif>>