Look in the manuals about "collocation". It is turned on at the storagepool level.
Look also in the archives as there are a lot of threads about pros and cons about using it. Ben -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexander Lazarevich Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Data organization on tape storage pool? Hi TSMers, TSM 5.1.6.5 on windows 2K server. Library is overland storage neo 4100 with 60 LTO-2 tapes, and 2 X LTO-2 HP drives. Setup the system last July, works just fine. But I'm a little curious how data is organized on tape volumes. I don't have a problem with anything, but I'm very curious what the logic is to how the server decides what data is put on what volume. For example, I noticed that data from a single client is on several different tapes. And as data is put on the tape storage pool, the server finds the tape which has a volume status of 'filling', and there is only one such tape, so it dumps data on there regardless of what client that data belongs to. Also, space reclamations can further jumble up the data on tapes, so that a client may have data on several different tapes. My questions is this: is there any way to control the organization of the data on the tape storage pool. For example, could I force all data from a single client to be put on a single tape, and if it needed another tape for data, it would grab a scratch tape only, and avoid putting data on a tape that has other client data on it. In addition to that, the server would probably be forced to have x many tapes with a volume status of 'filling', one for each client that backs up, right? Space reclamations could work fine, it just deletes the old data, then moves any data from a tape belonging to that client back onto another tape belonging to that client. I suppose in this scenario, there might be a lot of waisted tape space, because many clients have more data than the 200GB LTO-2 can store, so each client might have one tape which is only using, in theory, 1% of capacity. Anyone have any comments? Should I just leave it alone? Did tivoli study and come up with the best way to organize the data? Or is this something that people mess around with to get better performance? Thanks in advance, Alex --- --- Alex Lazarevich | Systems Administrator | Imaging Technology Group Beckman Institute | University of Illinois | www.itg.uiuc.edu --- ---