Printing labels locally for LTO tapes (physically)
Does anyone have any experience with trying to produce labels in-house to relabel physically LTO tapes? We’re going to start using different series of barcode labels as we start working with outside customers; I want to know just by looking at a tape whose data should be on that tape. My manager is worried that if we stock on up tapes as we add each customer, we may end up with too many for one customer and not enough for another, so he wants to be able to physically relabel the tapes. I found one article from HP warning against using inkjets or even “office quality” laser printers as being insufficiently precise for the job. They also warn about alignment issues, and I can imagine issues with labels falling off. However, before I say, “No, we shouldn’t even try; we should work with our tape vendor if we need to relabel tapes,” I want to make sure I’m not running contrary to actual experiences. So, have you tried printing your own labels for LTO tapes, and how’d that work out? Thanks, Nick
Re: Printing labels locally for LTO tapes (physically)
I've done it - generally in an emergency though. I've found all of the IBM libraries to be very forgiving of rather amateurish looking lables. I've only ever done them on a laser printers though. Getting them to stick (and stay) on is always the most challenging bit! Steven On 16 January 2015 at 12:01, Nick Laflamme wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with trying to produce labels in-house to > relabel physically LTO tapes? > > We’re going to start using different series of barcode labels as we start > working with outside customers; I want to know just by looking at a tape > whose data should be on that tape. My manager is worried that if we stock > on up tapes as we add each customer, we may end up with too many for one > customer and not enough for another, so he wants to be able to physically > relabel the tapes. > > I found one article from HP warning against using inkjets or even “office > quality” laser printers as being insufficiently precise for the job. They > also warn about alignment issues, and I can imagine issues with labels > falling off. However, before I say, “No, we shouldn’t even try; we should > work with our tape vendor if we need to relabel tapes,” I want to make sure > I’m not running contrary to actual experiences. > > So, have you tried printing your own labels for LTO tapes, and how’d that > work out? > > Thanks, > Nick
Re: Printing labels locally for LTO tapes (physically)
We have used this site in the past, actually back when it was completely free. http://www.mytapelabels.com/ we use Avery 6577 labels in our HP color laser and they are crisp and they stick like crazy. David Tyree System Administrator South Georgia Medical Center 229.333.1155 -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 07:43 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Printing labels locally for LTO tapes (physically) I've done it - generally in an emergency though. I've found all of the IBM libraries to be very forgiving of rather amateurish looking lables. I've only ever done them on a laser printers though. Getting them to stick (and stay) on is always the most challenging bit! Steven On 16 January 2015 at 12:01, Nick Laflamme wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with trying to produce labels in-house > to relabel physically LTO tapes? > > We’re going to start using different series of barcode labels as we > start working with outside customers; I want to know just by looking > at a tape whose data should be on that tape. My manager is worried > that if we stock on up tapes as we add each customer, we may end up > with too many for one customer and not enough for another, so he wants > to be able to physically relabel the tapes. > > I found one article from HP warning against using inkjets or even > “office quality” laser printers as being insufficiently precise for > the job. They also warn about alignment issues, and I can imagine > issues with labels falling off. However, before I say, “No, we > shouldn’t even try; we should work with our tape vendor if we need to > relabel tapes,” I want to make sure I’m not running contrary to actual > experiences. > > So, have you tried printing your own labels for LTO tapes, and how’d > that work out? > > Thanks, > Nick
Re: Drive preference in a mixed-media library sharing environment
TSM support does not consider this a bug, and directed me to open a RFE. I've got the RFE submitted and it's percolating through the review process now. Here's the info if folks want to vote on it: Original PMR: 50613,550,000 RFE: 64537 URL: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=64537 On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:02:10AM +1100, Grant Street wrote: > Could you post the PMR number so others can track it? Also if it becomes > a RFE, for some reason, can you post the RFE number so that others (ie > me) can vote for it? > > Even though this is functionality that I don't need now, it is something > that may be of use and help in future architecture designs. We tend to > use mixed generational media ie LTO4, LTO5 and LTO6 because of our > mostly Archival nature. Being able to extend the range of media by using > a mix of drives in a sane way, would definitely be of interest for us. > > Thanks > > Grant > >On 07/01/15 01:47, Skylar Thompson wrote: > > 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 +, 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=L5,L5 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 volum
how to determine tape volumes used in backupset
Tsm server 6.2.5, on rhel 6.1. How can I get a list of volumes in a backupset? Been through the reference, must just be overlooking it. Thanks for any help.
Re: how to determine tape volumes used in backupset
I will starting with gather more data: select * from BACKUPSETS And later try to relate with other table ... regards 2015-01-16 10:32 GMT-06:00 Lee, Gary : > Tsm server 6.2.5, on rhel 6.1. > > How can I get a list of volumes in a backupset? > > Been through the reference, must just be overlooking it. > > Thanks for any help. >
Re: how to determine tape volumes used in backupset
Q BACKUPSET F=D -- Wiadomość oryginalna -- Temat: [ADSM-L] how to determine tape volumes used in backupset Nadawca: Lee, Gary Adresat: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Data: 16.01.2015, 17:32:04 Tsm server 6.2.5, on rhel 6.1. How can I get a list of volumes in a backupset? Been through the reference, must just be overlooking it. Thanks for any help.
