Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
I posted the following message a couple of months ago and a lot of you helped me out. Looks like we will have the funding for converting one D12 to D22 with two 3592 drives this fiscal year. However, management wants to purchase only 100 3592 tapes this year. My question is: Can 3590 and 3592 tapes coexist in the same D22? A D22 has 335 slots. I want to fill it with 100 3592 tapes and 235 3590 tapes. Is this config supported? The 3494 is very full. I can use every single slot. Also, can we convert the L12 before the D12? The two 3590 drives in the L12 are the oldest and the most problematic. I want to get rid of them first. Thanks, Eliza We have a 3494 tape library with six 3590E drives. I am looking into upgrading the 3590E drives to 3592 drives. current setup: TSM server 5.2.3.3 on AIX 5.2 3494 with 3 frames: one L12 and two D12s six 3590E tape drives server and 3590E drives connected to two 2109 SAN switches. Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame and two 3590E drives at a time and spread out the cost over 3 years. Can someone give me a rough cost estimate before I even propose it. Is there anything I missed in the following 3yr plan? Year 1: convert the frame L12 to L22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 3592 tapes Year 2 and 3: convert the frame D12 to D22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 3592 tapes Thanks, Eliza Lau Virginia Tech Computing Center 1700 Pratt Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
The 3590 and 3592 tapes can coexist in the same frames and slots. They can all be intermixed. The 3590 and 3592 DRIVES cannot coexist in the same frame, so you must upgrade one whole frame at a time. On our 4 libraries, we always upgraded the L22 first, as we could then put 4 3592 drives into the place where the 2 3590 drives were before (so we gain 2 extra drives to move the data to the new media), but I don't believe that it has to be done first. Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eliza Lau Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:03 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592 I posted the following message a couple of months ago and a lot of you helped me out. Looks like we will have the funding for converting one D12 to D22 with two 3592 drives this fiscal year. However, management wants to purchase only 100 3592 tapes this year. My question is: Can 3590 and 3592 tapes coexist in the same D22? A D22 has 335 slots. I want to fill it with 100 3592 tapes and 235 3590 tapes. Is this config supported? The 3494 is very full. I can use every single slot. Also, can we convert the L12 before the D12? The two 3590 drives in the L12 are the oldest and the most problematic. I want to get rid of them first. Thanks, Eliza We have a 3494 tape library with six 3590E drives. I am looking into upgrading the 3590E drives to 3592 drives. current setup: TSM server 5.2.3.3 on AIX 5.2 3494 with 3 frames: one L12 and two D12s six 3590E tape drives server and 3590E drives connected to two 2109 SAN switches. Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame and two 3590E drives at a time and spread out the cost over 3 years. Can someone give me a rough cost estimate before I even propose it. Is there anything I missed in the following 3yr plan? Year 1: convert the frame L12 to L22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 3592 tapes Year 2 and 3: convert the frame D12 to D22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 3592 tapes Thanks, Eliza Lau Virginia Tech Computing Center 1700 Pratt Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
Steve, This is interesting. In Yr3, if we just remove the remaining 3590s in the last L12 frame and replace them with bare slots, can the slots hold 3592 tapes? Does it mean the L12 doesn't need to be converted into a L22 before it can hold 3592 tapes? We have one L12 and two D12s. Two 3590 drives in each. Eliza Eliza, Why not Yr1 Convert one D12 to D22. Replace 2x 3590 with 3592 Yr2 Replace 2x3590 with 3592. This is possible because a D22 holds twice the drive density of a D12 Yr3 Given that the 3592 is faster than the 3590, it may not be necessary to add more 3592s. Just remove the remaining 3590s, and replace with bare slots. If you do decide to add more 3592 drives, add them into the D22 frame rather than converting another one. Regards Steve Steve Harris AIX and TSM Admin Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23/10/2004 1:53:51 We have a 3494 tape library with six 3590E drives. I am looking into upgrading the 3590E drives to 3592 drives. current setup: TSM server 5.2.3.3 on AIX 5.2 3494 with 3 frames: one L12 and two D12s six 3590E tape drives server and 3590E drives connected to two 2109 SAN switches. Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame and two 3590E drives at a time and spread out the cost over 3 years. Can someone give me a rough cost estimate before I even propose it. Is there anything I missed in the following 3yr plan? Year 1: convert the frame L12 to L22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Year 2 and 3: convert the frame D12 to D22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Thanks, Eliza Lau Virginia Tech Computing Center 1700 Pratt Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060 *** This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this email is prohibited. It may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this email in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by telephone or by return email. You should also delete this email and destroy any hard copies produced. ***
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
This is interesting. In Yr3, if we just remove the remaining 3590s in the last L12 frame and replace them with bare slots, can the slots hold 3592 tapes? Does it mean the L12 doesn't need to be converted into a L22 before it can hold 3592 tapes? My understanding is you only need to upgrade the L12s to L22s if you plan to use them to house 3592s. The slots are capable of holding either media. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
Curtis Stewart wrote: This is interesting. In Yr3, if we just remove the remaining 3590s in the last L12 frame and replace them with bare slots, can the slots hold 3592 tapes? Does it mean the L12 doesn't need to be converted into a L22 before it can hold 3592 tapes? My understanding is you only need to upgrade the L12s to L22s if you plan to use them to house 3592s. The slots are capable of holding either media. We're looking at adding 3592s to our 3494/3590 environment as well. Curtis is correct that you don't need to upgrade to an L12 if you're not going to put 3592 drives into that frame. However, you do need to have a new enough Library Manager (the OS/2 box in the L12) to support the 3592 drives. Since you only have 3590E drives, you probably will need an upgrade to the Library Manager (if you had 3590H drives, you'd probably be fine). Check with your sales rep. and support folks to figure that out for sure. And yes, the form factor for the 3592 cartridges is the same as for the 3590 carts (modulo the little nooks and crannies that the drives use to ensure they don't load the wrong type of cartridge, like 3490 vs. 3590). So both types can coexist in the same 3494 slots. Eliza Lau wrote: We have one L12 and two D12s. Two 3590 drives in each. Since you've got 2 D12 frames, you might consider moving two 3590s from one D12 to the other, then upgrading the first to a D22 and adding the first two 3592 drives there. Then as your need for the 3590s decreases, you can pull them out one at a time (and add drives to the D22 as growth and budget dictate). And the D22 will support up to 12 3592 drives. Don't forget to factor maintenance cost on the old drives into your decision, though. We're looking at keeping our 3590E drives (but upgrading to H for the extra capacity plus the fibre connectivity) as well as adding 3592 drives. My thinking is that the 3590s are still useful for the large number of collocated nodes that don't need anywhere near 300 GB. So we preserve our 3590K tape investment for a while longer, but consolidate the big backups (Oracle, huge fileservers, etc.) on the high-capacity 3592 tapes. -- Hello World.David Bronder - Systems Admin Segmentation Fault ITS-SPA, Univ. of Iowa Core dumped, disk trashed, quota filled, soda warm. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
...Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame... Eliza - Further $ might be saved by converting an existing frame... Per the 3592 Planning manual: Existing frame models L10, L12, and L14 frames can also be converted to the Model L22, and existing D10, D12, and D14 frame models can be converted to the D22 and D24 frames to accommodate the new 3592 drives. Richard Sims (thinking of going that way) We've done it. L12 - L22 and D12 - D22 Went quite smoothly, and quickly. Although it did appear that we may have been one of the first to do it. Make sure your IBM SE asks around for tips on how to do the upgrade. Also, you can put in 4x3592 drives in the spaces taken up by the 2x3590's. Matthew Glanville
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
Eliza, Why not Yr1 Convert one D12 to D22. Replace 2x 3590 with 3592 Yr2 Replace 2x3590 with 3592. This is possible because a D22 holds twice the drive density of a D12 Yr3 Given that the 3592 is faster than the 3590, it may not be necessary to add more 3592s. Just remove the remaining 3590s, and replace with bare slots. If you do decide to add more 3592 drives, add them into the D22 frame rather than converting another one. Regards Steve Steve Harris AIX and TSM Admin Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23/10/2004 1:53:51 We have a 3494 tape library with six 3590E drives. I am looking into upgrading the 3590E drives to 3592 drives. current setup: TSM server 5.2.3.3 on AIX 5.2 3494 with 3 frames: one L12 and two D12s six 3590E tape drives server and 3590E drives connected to two 2109 SAN switches. Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame and two 3590E drives at a time and spread out the cost over 3 years. Can someone give me a rough cost estimate before I even propose it. Is there anything I missed in the following 3yr plan? Year 1: convert the frame L12 to L22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Year 2 and 3: convert the frame D12 to D22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Thanks, Eliza Lau Virginia Tech Computing Center 1700 Pratt Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060 *** This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review of this email is prohibited. It may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this email in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by telephone or by return email. You should also delete this email and destroy any hard copies produced. ***
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
On Oct 21, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Shannon Bach wrote: According to the TSM most current doc (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/TSM390N/GC32 -0776-02/en_US/HTML/anrmrf522tfrm.htm) this is how I should define the devclass and the reply I received after, tsm: MGECC_SERVERDEFine DEVclass CART3590E DEVType=3590 ESTCAPacity=20G FORMAT=3590E-C COMPression=Yes MAXCAPacity=0 PREFIX=ADSM MOUNTRetention=1 MOUNTWait=60 MOUNTLimit=2 EXPiration=99365 PROtection=YES UNIT=3590 Session established with server MGECC_SERVER: MVS Server Version 5, Release 1, Level 7.0 Server date/time: 10/21/2004 15:02:56 Last access: 10/21/2004 15:02:08 ANR2020E DEFINE DEVCLASS: Invalid parameter - FORMAT. Nowhere in my 5.1 manual is a reference to the Format= in the Define Devclass, so I was wondering if it is because out TSM server is at 5.1.7.0 instead of 5.2. See what happens when your initial postings don't specify your platform?... :-) I haven't been in MVS|OS/390|zOS for years, so a current customer in that area could provide more insight, but it appears that through TSM 5.2, there was no provision for specifying Devclass FORMAT in that environment, which implies that TSM discerned it from the OS environment. It appears that with TSM 5.2.2, IBM decided to normalize the product code base, and as of that level FORMAT can be speicified, as on other platforms. The publications people shortchanged the doc, as the Technical Changes summary in the 5.2.2 Admin Ref is minimal and fails to mention the FORMAT addition. Ostensibly, you would be okay in 5.1 to simply code as much as that level allows and let that TSM discern the 3590 drive type. Again, an MVS customer with 3590e would be in the best position to comment, based upon esperience. Richard Sims
upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
We have a 3494 tape library with six 3590E drives. I am looking into upgrading the 3590E drives to 3592 drives. current setup: TSM server 5.2.3.3 on AIX 5.2 3494 with 3 frames: one L12 and two D12s six 3590E tape drives server and 3590E drives connected to two 2109 SAN switches. Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame and two 3590E drives at a time and spread out the cost over 3 years. Can someone give me a rough cost estimate before I even propose it. Is there anything I missed in the following 3yr plan? Year 1: convert the frame L12 to L22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Year 2 and 3: convert the frame D12 to D22 replace two 3590E with 3592 300 new 2592 tapes Thanks, Eliza Lau Virginia Tech Computing Center 1700 Pratt Drive Blacksburg, VA 24060
Re: upgrade path from 3590E to 3592
On Oct 22, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Eliza Lau wrote: ...Because of budget constrains I am thinking of replacing a frame... Eliza - Further $ might be saved by converting an existing frame... Per the 3592 Planning manual: Existing frame models L10, L12, and L14 frames can also be converted to the Model L22, and existing D10, D12, and D14 frame models can be converted to the D22 and D24 frames to accommodate the new 3592 drives. Richard Sims (thinking of going that way)
3590B vs 3590E drives
I know this has been addressed many times, I have read the list archives on the subject, plus I've read both the Admin Guide and the Admin Ref. I'm still slightly confused on defining a NEW Devclass for primary tape pools. The following is our current Devclass -CART3590 (3590b drives, 3590J tapes) Here is what I have defined for the new Devclass -CART3590E (3590e drives, 3590J tapes) Is the only differance between the two drives the Estimated Capacity? Thanks in advance for any replies. Shannon Shannon C. Bach Operations Analyst Data Center Services Madison Gas Electric Co Madison WI 53705
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
On Oct 21, 2004, at 1:14 PM, Shannon Bach wrote: Is the only differance between the two drives the Estimated Capacity? Shannon - Not reflected in your devclass summaries was the critical definition element: Format. That's the key difference between 3590B and E in TSM. Richard Sims
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
When I tried to add the format=drive option, it came back with an invalid option error. I couldn't figure out where I put this. I followed the manual's format but the manual was 5.2 and my server is 5.1.7. Could this be the problem? Shannon Richard Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2004 01:19 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives On Oct 21, 2004, at 1:14 PM, Shannon Bach wrote: Is the only differance between the two drives the Estimated Capacity? Shannon - Not reflected in your devclass summaries was the critical definition element: Format. That's the key difference between 3590B and E in TSM. Richard Sims
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
On Oct 21, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Shannon Bach wrote: When I tried to add the format=drive option, it came back with an invalid option error. I couldn't figure out where I put this. I followed the manual's format but the manual was 5.2 and my server is 5.1.7. Could this be the problem? Why would you not use the manual appropriate to the software level? The TSM 4.2 to 5.2.2 manuals can be had at http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/tdprodlist.html Note also that the server README file historically has carried info on how to proceed with drive technology upgrades. I tend to avoid vague definitions such as Format=Drive: specifying exactly what is what is generally safer. Choose an explicit format per the manual. We don't know what problem you are having. Please post what the fundamental problem is, with any pertinent error messages. Richard Sims
Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives
According to the TSM most current doc (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/TSM390N/GC32-0776-02/en_US/HTML/anrmrf522tfrm.htm) this is how I should define the devclass and the reply I received after, tsm: MGECC_SERVERDEFine DEVclass CART3590E DEVType=3590 ESTCAPacity=20G FORMAT=3590E-C COMPression=Yes MAXCAPacity=0 PREFIX=ADSM MOUNTRetention=1 MOUNTWait=60 MOUNTLimit=2 EXPiration=99365 PROtection=YES UNIT=3590 Session established with server MGECC_SERVER: MVS Server Version 5, Release 1, Level 7.0 Server date/time: 10/21/2004 15:02:56 Last access: 10/21/2004 15:02:08 ANR2020E DEFINE DEVCLASS: Invalid parameter - FORMAT. Nowhere in my 5.1 manual is a reference to the Format= in the Define Devclass, so I was wondering if it is because out TSM server is at 5.1.7.0 instead of 5.2. Richard Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2004 02:20 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: 3590B vs 3590E drives On Oct 21, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Shannon Bach wrote: When I tried to add the format=drive option, it came back with an invalid option error. I couldn't figure out where I put this. I followed the manual's format but the manual was 5.2 and my server is 5.1.7. Could this be the problem? Why would you not use the manual appropriate to the software level? The TSM 4.2 to 5.2.2 manuals can be had at http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/tdprodlist.html Note also that the server README file historically has carried info on how to proceed with drive technology upgrades. I tend to avoid vague definitions such as Format=Drive: specifying exactly what is what is generally safer. Choose an explicit format per the manual. We don't know what problem you are having. Please post what the fundamental problem is, with any pertinent error messages. Richard Sims
Mixing 3590E and 3590K volumes
My 3494 is filled with 3590E carts. If I were to use 3590K carts, my robot wouldn't be so filled. This is the current definition of the DEVC TAPE: Device Class Name: TAPE Device Access Strategy: Sequential Storage Pool Count: 8 Device Type: 3590 Format: DRIVE Est/Max Capacity (MB): Mount Limit: 7 Mount Wait (min): 60 Mount Retention (min): 2 If I were to start introducing the longer format carts into my system, would TSM use them interchangeably with the old ones, i.e., would reclamation write 2 Es on a K and 1/2 a K on an E, or would I have to have two separate device classes? TIA
Re: Mixing 3590E and 3590K volumes
If your 3590 drives have the green 2x sticker on the back of them (open the cabinet and look), they can support K cartridges. 3590H drives can support K-Carts. The K carts have a different knotch configuration than the J cartridges. There is no issue with having a mixed bag except it throws off your estimated capacity numbers. The K cartridges also require Turtle cases to ship them if you intend to use certified cases. They are a lot more sensitive to being damaged. Paul D. Seay, Jr. Technical Specialist Northrop Grumman Information Technology 757-688-8180 -Original Message- From: Fred Johanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mixing 3590E and 3590K volumes My 3494 is filled with 3590E carts. If I were to use 3590K carts, my robot wouldn't be so filled. This is the current definition of the DEVC TAPE: Device Class Name: TAPE Device Access Strategy: Sequential Storage Pool Count: 8 Device Type: 3590 Format: DRIVE Est/Max Capacity (MB): Mount Limit: 7 Mount Wait (min): 60 Mount Retention (min): 2 If I were to start introducing the longer format carts into my system, would TSM use them interchangeably with the old ones, i.e., would reclamation write 2 Es on a K and 1/2 a K on an E, or would I have to have two separate device classes? TIA
Re: Mixing 3590E and 3590K volumes
My 3494 is filled with 3590E carts. Well, you have something I've never seen... I know about 3590J tapes, and 3590K tapes, but never seen a 3590E tape. ;-) If I were to start introducing the longer format carts into my system, would TSM use them interchangeably with the old ones, i.e., would reclamation write 2 Es on a K and 1/2 a K on an E, or would I have to have two separate device classes? Conceptually, yes. But you would need 3590E drives for the K tapes. Richard Sims, BU
?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data protection, optimized for enterprise multi-mode and host attachment, high-cycle and start/stop intensive tape applications, consider the proven IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Tape Drive 3590 or the IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Automated Tape Library 3494. Are TSM restores and reclamation of aggregated files start/stop intensive? Has anyone done TSM performance comparisons of LTO vs 3590E for: --- - DR or FS restore from (semi-collocated) tapes? - primary (semi-collocated) tape-tape reclamation? Thank you for any experienced advice you will share with us. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693)
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore servi ce?
LTO is a streaming data device. If you cannot keep the data flowing at tape speed, it has to stop, back up, and restart to get the tape up to speed again. This is very time-expensive in LTO because of the hardware design. An LTO drive is 5 inches tall and roughly twice as long as the data cartridge; the motor is lightweight, and there is no tape 'buffer' between the cart and the internal reel. The motor on a 3580/3590 is much larger and heavier, and there is a vacuum column buffer between the cart and the internal reel. The net result is that the 3590 needs to get one reel or the other up to speed and has several inches of tape to accelerate AND has a much more powerful motor to do it. The LTO drive, with a lighter motor, has no tape buffer and needs to get both reels and all the tape moving. My gut feel (I haven't done 3590 in 4 years) is that LTO would be ugly in your environment because of all the small files. IBM claims to have improved the 'back-hitch' performance in the new LTO-2, but I don't think it's improved that much HTH Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -Original Message- From: James R Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service? ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data protection, optimized for enterprise multi-mode and host attachment, high-cycle and start/stop intensive tape applications, consider the proven IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Tape Drive 3590 or the IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Automated Tape Library 3494. Are TSM restores and reclamation of aggregated files start/stop intensive? Has anyone done TSM performance comparisons of LTO vs
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
Jim, few hints: - TSM restores and reclamation for big aggregates are read/seek forward which is not actually start/stop so I think they should not count, but ... restores and reclamation of small files from non-collocated volumes are definitely start/stop intensive. How intensive are for you depends on how semi-collocated your tapes are. TSM aggregation mitigates starts/stops but cannot fully relieve them. With such high number of clients mounts/dismounts prevale starts/stops and you'd better stay with 3590. - some of the servers with big files/databases can go to a stgpool on 3584. LTO shines with big files and is still very good with files over few MB (thanks to TSM's aggregation). Filesystems where aggregation can get 50-100 MB for every TXNGROUPMAX files are just fine. - reaching 5.1.6 on your forthcoming upgrade you can upgrade to 3590H. This would give you 50% more - 1700x10 GB (uncompressed) keeping fast seeks/restores right now. Usage of K cartridges will also increase the capacity without performance degradation. There is no problem to mix J-s and K-s in the library. And for the future - the 1 TB cartridge announced by IBM will definitely go to strengthen 3590 line and I guess this would happen during this year. So the answer to the subject - LTO can't replace 3590! Upgrade slowly and it would be fine. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant James R Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30.01.2003 21:36 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service? ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service?
Jim, You have a good grasp of the issues and what looks to be an interesting environment. Would it be possible to add complexity to get each drive type to do what its best at? What I'm thinking of is a three level hierarchy disk - 3590 - lto Allow sufficient headroom in your 3590 pool for a day or two of new data, and migrate down in a scheduled fashion as you would a disk storage pool. Because you are semi colocated the migrate should be a reasonably efficient streaming operation. You will also get efficient use of the lto media. If you have enough disk, I'd also consider a disk reclaim storage pool for any LTO primary pool reclaims. Alternatively, you could script a move data of primary LTO volumes back into your primary disk pool and let normal migration do the rest. I've not tried any of this, but I hope the ideas are useful. Steve Harris AIX and TSM Admin Queensland Health, Brisbane Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31/01/2003 5:36:33 ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same 3590E tape. This problem could be much worse with 100GB LTO tapes as we might have only 70/320 filling LTO tapes.] Even w/ full-collocation, we believe restoration/reclamation of a highly active client's aggregated backups of many small/medium-sized files might involve substantial start/stop and seeking operations and would probably perform poorly on LTO when compared to 3590E tapes. Are our concerns warranted? -- In IBM's 2003-01-28 announcement of new Ultrium 2 LTO technology, the last paragraph under the heading Product Positioning states: For mission-critical data protection, optimized for enterprise multi-mode and host attachment, high-cycle and start/stop intensive tape applications, consider the proven IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Tape Drive 3590 or the IBM TotalStorage Enterprise Automated Tape Library 3494. Are TSM restores and reclamation of aggregated files start/stop intensive? Has anyone done TSM performance comparisons of LTO vs 3590E for: --- - DR or FS restore from (semi-collocated) tapes? - primary (semi-collocated) tape-tape reclamation? Thank you for any experienced advice you will share with us. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693
Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore servi ce?
LTO-2 implements variable speed tape. The drive adjusts its speed to match the data flow. This should be a vast improvement. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com) IBM Premier Business Partner 121 Cheshire Lane, Suite 700 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Kauffman, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/30/2003 02:44 PM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore servi ce? LTO is a streaming data device. If you cannot keep the data flowing at tape speed, it has to stop, back up, and restart to get the tape up to speed again. This is very time-expensive in LTO because of the hardware design. An LTO drive is 5 inches tall and roughly twice as long as the data cartridge; the motor is lightweight, and there is no tape 'buffer' between the cart and the internal reel. The motor on a 3580/3590 is much larger and heavier, and there is a vacuum column buffer between the cart and the internal reel. The net result is that the 3590 needs to get one reel or the other up to speed and has several inches of tape to accelerate AND has a much more powerful motor to do it. The LTO drive, with a lighter motor, has no tape buffer and needs to get both reels and all the tape moving. My gut feel (I haven't done 3590 in 4 years) is that LTO would be ugly in your environment because of all the small files. IBM claims to have improved the 'back-hitch' performance in the new LTO-2, but I don't think it's improved that much HTH Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -Original Message- From: James R Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ?Can LTO replace 3590E tape for busy TSM backup/restore service? ??? Do you have experience w/ or plans for replacing 3590E with LTO tapes for a busy enterprise TSM backup service? Is LTO performance OK ??? We expect to double business for one of our TSM services over next 4 years. Last year, for space and cost savings, future enhancements, etc... we bought new LTO (100GB/tape) libraries to use for Copy STGpools, replacing existing 3590E (20GB/tape) Copy STGpools which made all of those 3590E tapes available to expand our primary STGpools.) Now, we are considering whether we can use LTO tapes for new primary tape STGpools or should we continue to expand our existing 3590E tape STGpools? We have performance concerns about using LTO tapes for primary STGpools! Our current environment: --- TSM v4.2.3.2+ (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) AIX v4.3.3 (upgrading to v5... soon, before 5/2003) IBM 7025-6F1 w/ 2*600Mhz CPUs and 1GB memory IBM 3494 w/ 6 3590E drives for 1700 primary backup tapes IBM 3584 w/ 4 3580 LTO drives for 300 copy + 10 TSM DB backup tapes 2700 active clients (100 Servers, 2500 Win*,Mac,Linux,etc. PC's) backup 5-600GB/night (some 1-4GB files, mostly much smaller files!) TSM DB: 74-76% of 120GB TSM LOG: 12GB (w/ LOGM=R needs 1 full + 1-2 incr.DB bkups daily) Our expectations for next 4 years: - clients: +25%/year, @+4 years = +2800 clients: +100 S, +2700 PC's backups: +25-50%/year, @+4 years = 2-4 * current backup load! how: ??? replicate another or super-size current TSM service? Our current LTO tape experience: --- We use LTO tapes ONLY for an online Copy STGpool and TSM DB backups. LTO seems to be ~100% faster than 3590E tape for TSM Backup DB... LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for TSM BAckup STGpool... w/ EMC SAN disks or 3590E tapes - LTO vs 3590E Copy tapes. LTO can be 30-50% slower than 3590E tape for our online Copy STGpool reclaiming LTO Copy tape - LTO Copy tape vs 3590E - 3590E. Do you see similar or better performance? Our concerns about replacing 3590E w/ LTO tapes for primary STGpools: We are worried about start/stop and seeking performance using large capacity LTO tapes for restoration or reclamation of aggregated small/medium-sized files on semi-collocated tapes. [We use collocation, but currently have 350/1700 filling 3590E tapes available for 2700 clients, so we often have multiple clients' backups sharing the same
3590E MicroCode Back Level Situation (two code paths)
F_026E backleveled a fix from a previous release related to SAN LIP protocols and login that was on, I believe, D_0388. To correct the problem F_027E is the fix. This fix is not generally available yet. If you have McData ES-1000 switches, you are especially exposed. Basically, one drive can kill all the drives connected to the switch. Your CE will have to acquire the code. Paul D. Seay, Jr. Technical Specialist Naptheon Inc. 757-688-8180
Upgrade from 3590E to 3590H
Hello, everyone. Platform: IBM pSeries 6M1 OS: AIX 4.3.3.10 TSM: 5.1.1.1 Atape: 7.0.7.0 atldd: 5.0.7.0 I am getting ready to perform an upgrade from 3590E to 3590H drives in my 3494. Each of the 6-drives is directly fiber-channel attached to the TSM server. Has anyone gone through an upgrade such as this? If so, can you share you experience with me? I guess, what I am looking for is the steps in TSM and AIX that I need to go through to successfully do this. TIA Mahesh
Re: Upgrade from 3590E to 3590H
Actually the steps are just the same as for migration from 3590B to 3590E. IBM CE will perform the upgrade and you will do the rest. The latter is well documented and you can also find plenty of info in list archives (http://www.adsm.org/). Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Upgrade from 3590E to 3590H Hello, everyone. Platform: IBM pSeries 6M1 OS: AIX 4.3.3.10 TSM: 5.1.1.1 Atape: 7.0.7.0 atldd: 5.0.7.0 I am getting ready to perform an upgrade from 3590E to 3590H drives in my 3494. Each of the 6-drives is directly fiber-channel attached to the TSM server. Has anyone gone through an upgrade such as this? If so, can you share you experience with me? I guess, what I am looking for is the steps in TSM and AIX that I need to go through to successfully do this. TIA Mahesh
Upgrade from 3590B to 3590E
Hello, AIX 4.3.3, TSM 4.1.0.0 Within two weeks we are upgrading from 3590B to 3590E, and from two to three drives. Before we have to upgrade our Atape drivers on AIX. We never done this before. Is there anyone who was in this proces lately and can tell me the sequence of the proces. Besides any good tips and trics are very welcome? Thanks, Brian. _ MSN Foto's is de eenvoudigste manier om je foto's te delen en af te drukken: http://photos.msn.nl/Support/WorldWide.aspx
Re: Upgrade from 3590B to 3590E
Not getting into the Atape drivers...lslpp -l | grep Atape to see what you're curreently running... and you'll probably have to upgrade (if you have a 3494), your atldd lslpp -l | grep atldd download read the readme(s) etc... make reado all the filling tapes... verify that your drive format is drives rename stgpools is fun... move data from old tapes to new tapesto force a conversion... high level stuff.. -Original Message- From: brian welsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Upgrade from 3590B to 3590E Hello, AIX 4.3.3, TSM 4.1.0.0 Within two weeks we are upgrading from 3590B to 3590E, and from two to three drives. Before we have to upgrade our Atape drivers on AIX. We never done this before. Is there anyone who was in this proces lately and can tell me the sequence of the proces. Besides any good tips and trics are very welcome? Thanks, Brian. _ MSN Foto's is de eenvoudigste manier om je foto's te delen en af te drukken: http://photos.msn.nl/Support/WorldWide.aspx
Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
3590E normal tapes long tapes ? ? ? are you referring to J tapes K tapes ? (that is all I know of...) J tapes are 3590-B1A tapes which may be written to by 3590-E1A tape drives (a reformat is performed) and K tapes are the 3590-E1A tapes from the start... If this is the case, yes, you can have both in an ATL that is loaded with 3590-E1A tape drives... OK, my ~technical~ term here... those little plastic do-ma-hickies that are blue on J tapes, white on cleaning tapes and green on K tapes have recesses in them that are in different locations and indicate to the tape drive which type of media is in the drive... You don't have to do anything special... Dwight -Original Message- From: Rooij, FC de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? Fred, I have the same issue here. The modified 3590 has a green 2x sticker on back. What I've been told is regular drives can read J tapes but 2x drives can read J and K tapes. Maybe someone else can comment on this. Because of this I've been waiting till after the upgrade of my drives to insert them. TSM has nothing to do with how the 3590 handles the tapes or what mix of tapes it can read/write to. That's all hardware related. As long as the hardware is supported the rest should be behind the scenes stuff. Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (888) 997-9614
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
The only issue is the 2X feature (K support) must be on the drive and driver levels have to be high enough to support the search/rewind times. We run just like this on 3590-E1A drives. -Original Message- From: Cook, Dwight E (SAIC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? 3590E normal tapes long tapes ? ? ? are you referring to J tapes K tapes ? (that is all I know of...) J tapes are 3590-B1A tapes which may be written to by 3590-E1A tape drives (a reformat is performed) and K tapes are the 3590-E1A tapes from the start... If this is the case, yes, you can have both in an ATL that is loaded with 3590-E1A tape drives... OK, my ~technical~ term here... those little plastic do-ma-hickies that are blue on J tapes, white on cleaning tapes and green on K tapes have recesses in them that are in different locations and indicate to the tape drive which type of media is in the drive... You don't have to do anything special... Dwight -Original Message- From: Rooij, FC de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
Our CE had to change a setting on the 3590E tape drives to allow them to write to the double length tapes. Jeff Bach Home Office Open Systems Engineering Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL -Original Message- From: Cook, Dwight E (SAIC) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? 3590E normal tapes long tapes ? ? ? are you referring to J tapes K tapes ? (that is all I know of...) J tapes are 3590-B1A tapes which may be written to by 3590-E1A tape drives (a reformat is performed) and K tapes are the 3590-E1A tapes from the start... If this is the case, yes, you can have both in an ATL that is loaded with 3590-E1A tape drives... OK, my ~technical~ term here... those little plastic do-ma-hickies that are blue on J tapes, white on cleaning tapes and green on K tapes have recesses in them that are in different locations and indicate to the tape drive which type of media is in the drive... You don't have to do anything special... Dwight -Original Message- From: Rooij, FC de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
It is more than a setting. The takeup reel and some other stuff has to be changed in the drive depending on the level of E1A drive it is. The original E1As did not support K tape. -Original Message- From: Jeff Bach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? Our CE had to change a setting on the 3590E tape drives to allow them to write to the double length tapes. Jeff Bach Home Office Open Systems Engineering Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL -Original Message- From: Cook, Dwight E (SAIC) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? 3590E normal tapes long tapes ? ? ? are you referring to J tapes K tapes ? (that is all I know of...) J tapes are 3590-B1A tapes which may be written to by 3590-E1A tape drives (a reformat is performed) and K tapes are the 3590-E1A tapes from the start... If this is the case, yes, you can have both in an ATL that is loaded with 3590-E1A tape drives... OK, my ~technical~ term here... those little plastic do-ma-hickies that are blue on J tapes, white on cleaning tapes and green on K tapes have recesses in them that are in different locations and indicate to the tape drive which type of media is in the drive... You don't have to do anything special... Dwight -Original Message- From: Rooij, FC de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
A regular 3590 tape when used in a 'B' drive capacity is 10GB, extended tape capacity is 2x or 20GB. A regular 3590 tape when used in a 'E' drive capacity is 20GB, extended tape capacity is 2x or 40GB. A 3590 'B' drive can read / write both tapes. A 3590 'E' drive can read / write both tapes. A 3590 'E' drive can read tapes written by a 3590 'B' drive. A 3590 'B' drive can NOT read tapes written by a 3590 'E' drive. A 3590 'E' drive can NOT write to tapes ALREADY containing data written by a 3590 'B' drive. Cautions. Mark all tapes as full if you change drives from 'B' to 'E'. Check your device classes for capacity settings. In the 390 or Z/OS world there are parmlib settings you need when changing drives. -Original Message- From: Gill, Geoffrey L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? Fred, I have the same issue here. The modified 3590 has a green 2x sticker on back. What I've been told is regular drives can read J tapes but 2x drives can read J and K tapes. Maybe someone else can comment on this. Because of this I've been waiting till after the upgrade of my drives to insert them. TSM has nothing to do with how the 3590 handles the tapes or what mix of tapes it can read/write to. That's all hardware related. As long as the hardware is supported the rest should be behind the scenes stuff. Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (888) 997-9614
Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible?
might explain why all the internals (bunch anyway) were green when we had IBM upgrade a bunch of B1A tape drives to E1A drives just a few months back... color coded to indicate usage... -Original Message- From: Seay, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? It is more than a setting. The takeup reel and some other stuff has to be changed in the drive depending on the level of E1A drive it is. The original E1As did not support K tape. -Original Message- From: Jeff Bach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? Our CE had to change a setting on the 3590E tape drives to allow them to write to the double length tapes. Jeff Bach Home Office Open Systems Engineering Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL -Original Message- From: Cook, Dwight E (SAIC) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? 3590E normal tapes long tapes ? ? ? are you referring to J tapes K tapes ? (that is all I know of...) J tapes are 3590-B1A tapes which may be written to by 3590-E1A tape drives (a reformat is performed) and K tapes are the 3590-E1A tapes from the start... If this is the case, yes, you can have both in an ATL that is loaded with 3590-E1A tape drives... OK, my ~technical~ term here... those little plastic do-ma-hickies that are blue on J tapes, white on cleaning tapes and green on K tapes have recesses in them that are in different locations and indicate to the tape drive which type of media is in the drive... You don't have to do anything special... Dwight -Original Message- From: Rooij, FC de [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] mailto:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Is a mix of 3590E normal tape with long-tape possible? In our library IBM-3494 are 3490E tape-units. This library will reach its limits for the number of cartridges. We think of replacing the 3490E normal tapes by long-tapes. Does TSM support a mix of different tapes? If so, is it necessary to make modification in e.i. hardware(3490E modification?) or in TSM-settings. Are there pitfalls? Kindest regards, Fred de Rooij ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Louis Wiesemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Thanks. One thing I'm not clear on is whether I need to set the old B tapes to readonly or can I let TSM do it for me. IBM says that the new drives will not write over a non-scratch tape in the old format. When TSM calls for an output tape and the drive detects the old format will it genrate an error that causes TSM to mark the tape readonly and then mount a scratch tape? Or should I set the B tapes to readonly before bringing TSM up with the new drives? If I remember correctly, the TSM-Sever internally records for each tape, whether ist has been written by a B-type or E-type drive, and refuses to _continue_ to write a B-type tape on an E-type drive. You thus only need to set the FILLING tapes to READONLY, no need to set them all to READONLY or to define a new storage pool, as someone else mentioned. It is important, that the TSM server recognizes the new drive types. This is done by deleting and redefining the drives. -- Reinhard MerschWestfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Zentrum fuer Informationsverarbeitung - ehemals Universitaetsrechenzentrum Roentgenstrasse 9-13, D-48149 Muenster, Germany Tel: +49(251)83-31583 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49(251)83-31653
TSM and 3590E Tapes
We are running TSM 3.7.3 on OS/390 2.8. We are getting ready to upgrade our tape drives from model B's to model E's. IBM says that the upgraded drives will read the old tapes just fine, but will write them at the new density. I am unable to determine what, if anything, I need to do to configure TSM for this change. The deviceclasses only define 3590 with no model information. The capacity information for the old density tapes will not be correct when it starts writing at the new density. Is this something that TSM will adjust automatically or do I need to reset it somehow? Are there any problems I'm not thinking of that might bite us with some tapes at the old density and some at the new, once TSM starts writing tapes with the upgraded drives? Anything, else I should be looking at. Thanks for any advice. Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Definitely go thru the archives on this one...there is alot of good information out there Also review this email -Original Message- From: Louis Wiesemann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TSM and 3590E Tapes We are running TSM 3.7.3 on OS/390 2.8. We are getting ready to upgrade our tape drives from model B's to model E's. IBM says that the upgraded drives will read the old tapes just fine, but will write them at the new density. I am unable to determine what, if anything, I need to do to configure TSM for this change. The deviceclasses only define 3590 with no model information. The capacity information for the old density tapes will not be correct when it starts writing at the new density. Is this something that TSM will adjust automatically or do I need to reset it somehow? Are there any problems I'm not thinking of that might bite us with some tapes at the old density and some at the new, once TSM starts writing tapes with the upgraded drives? Anything, else I should be looking at. Thanks for any advice. Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday Here is the information on upgrading to 3590E drives $$ Support for IBM 3590 Model Exx Tape Drives - ADSM now supports the IBM 3590E Tape drive. The 3590E tape drive writes data in a new 256 track data tape format. 3590E drives can not write in 3590 128 track format however, they can read data from the tapes previously written in 128 track format on 3590 drives. With new 3590E drives available, the existing 3494 libraries with 3590 drives may either be completely upgraded with 3590E drives or they may have an intermix configuration (3590 and 3590E drives). ADSM administrators must follow certain rules to transition from old 3590 drives to new 3590E drives and/or maintain both kinds of drives within the same physical library. Configurations: Device Driver level: Atape.4.4.0.0 ( ftp://index.storsys.ibm.com/devdrvr/AIX) Microcode level: 3590E - EC F23200 D01C_502 NOTE: To convert a 3590E volume to 3590 must have microcode level EC D19328 D01A_2FC Tape formats for 3590E: - 3590E-B - uncompressed mode (similar to 3590B) - 3590E-C - compressed mode (similar to 3590C) - DRIVE - the most advanced available format Note: For 3590 and 3590E tape drives the most advanced formats are respectively 3590C and 3590E-C 1. All 3590 drives within physical library are upgraded with 3590E drives at the same time. Consider an example with one 3590 drive physically defined as /dev/rmt0. Assume that there were originally defined devclass, logical library, and storage pool for 3590 drive. There were also some volumes (tape cartridges) checked in the library with data written on that drive. Replaced 3590 drive with 3590E drive. Steps below will allow you to use the new 3590E drives with minimum changes to ADSM server: - Using SMIT utility or manually, remove /dev/rmt0 device example: rmdev -l 'rmt0' '-d; - Using SMIT utility or manually, define the 3590E device example: mkdev -c tape -t '3590' -s 'scsi' -p 'scsi0' -w '0,0' -l 'rmt0'; - Run ADSM server (dsmserv); - Issue ADSM command: UPDate DEVclass devclassname FORMAT=DRIVE update devclass devclass_3590 FORMAT=DRIVE; - Issue ADSM command: DELete DRive libname drivename delete drive lib_3590 drive_3590; - Issue ADSM command: DEFine DRive libname drivename DEVIce=devicename define drive lib_3590 drive_3590 device=/dev/rmt0; - Update all previously written on 3590 drive volumes to readonly mode update volume volname access=readonly; 2. Intermix of 3590 and 3590E drives in a single 3494 library environment. Consider an example of a physical library with one 3590 drive defined on /dev/rmt0 and a new 3590E drive defined on /dev/rmt1. Assume that there were originally defined devclass, logical library, and storage pool for 3590 drives. With addition of a new 3590E drive to the library that already has 3590 drives in it, new DEVCLASS, new logical LIBRARY, and new STORAGE pool MUST be defined. Defining new devclass, logical library, and storage pool for 3590E drive: DEFINE LOGICAL LIBRARY
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
When we did this on AIX, every 3590B cartridge became READ-ONLY. Depending on the size of your scratch pool, you can either let them migrate to 3590E via gradual reclamation, which you can speed along by setting a relatively low reclamation value, or by run MOVE DATA on every 3590B volume you have. At 10:42 AM 7/10/2001 -0400, you wrote: We are running TSM 3.7.3 on OS/390 2.8. We are getting ready to upgrade our tape drives from model B's to model E's. IBM says that the upgraded drives will read the old tapes just fine, but will write them at the new density. I am unable to determine what, if anything, I need to do to configure TSM for this change. The deviceclasses only define 3590 with no model information. The capacity information for the old density tapes will not be correct when it starts writing at the new density. Is this something that TSM will adjust automatically or do I need to reset it somehow? Are there any problems I'm not thinking of that might bite us with some tapes at the old density and some at the new, once TSM starts writing tapes with the upgraded drives? Anything, else I should be looking at. Thanks for any advice. Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Just setup at new storage tape pool and force the B tape storage pool to migrate to it by updating the nextpool, hi, and lo. Change the nextpool for any disk pool to point to the new storage pool. Are you going to double density tapes or double length also. If you are going to double length, make sure the tape drive itself is configured to allow it. For some reason, marking the old tapes read-only helps the process. Jeff Bach Home Office Open Systems Engineering Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL -Original Message- From: Fred Johanson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes When we did this on AIX, every 3590B cartridge became READ-ONLY. Depending on the size of your scratch pool, you can either let them migrate to 3590E via gradual reclamation, which you can speed along by setting a relatively low reclamation value, or by run MOVE DATA on every 3590B volume you have. At 10:42 AM 7/10/2001 -0400, you wrote: We are running TSM 3.7.3 on OS/390 2.8. We are getting ready to upgrade our tape drives from model B's to model E's. IBM says that the upgraded drives will read the old tapes just fine, but will write them at the new density. I am unable to determine what, if anything, I need to do to configure TSM for this change. The deviceclasses only define 3590 with no model information. The capacity information for the old density tapes will not be correct when it starts writing at the new density. Is this something that TSM will adjust automatically or do I need to reset it somehow? Are there any problems I'm not thinking of that might bite us with some tapes at the old density and some at the new, once TSM starts writing tapes with the upgraded drives? Anything, else I should be looking at. Thanks for any advice. --- - Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 --- - The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Thanks. I just sent an email query for the archives. I had been trying to seach them from the web, but had no luck. The LSOFT pages show a web archive link at: vm.marist.edu/htbin/wa but when I try to link to it I can't get connected. Is there really a web interface for ADSM-L archives? Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/01 10:55AM Definitely go thru the archives on this one...there is alot of good information out there Also review this email
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Yes, point your favorite browser to www.adsm.org and search to your heart's content! lisa Louis Wiesemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/2001 10:18 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Lisa Cabanas/SC/MODOT) Subject:Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes Thanks. I just sent an email query for the archives. I had been trying to seach them from the web, but had no luck. The LSOFT pages show a web archive link at: vm.marist.edu/htbin/wa but when I try to link to it I can't get connected. Is there really a web interface for ADSM-L archives? Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/01 10:55AM Definitely go thru the archives on this one...there is alot of good information out there Also review this email
Re: TSM and 3590E Tapes
Thanks. One thing I'm not clear on is whether I need to set the old B tapes to readonly or can I let TSM do it for me. IBM says that the new drives will not write over a non-scratch tape in the old format. When TSM calls for an output tape and the drive detects the old format will it genrate an error that causes TSM to mark the tape readonly and then mount a scratch tape? Or should I set the B tapes to readonly before bringing TSM up with the new drives? Thanks also to those who pointed me to the online archives. Louis J. Wiesemann 502-852-8952 The Daily Word For Reflection is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily to allow personal reflection on the Word of God. SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE at: http://www.cin.org:81/guest/RemoteListSummary/dailywordtoday John Marquart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/01 12:24PM The archive is at www.adsm.org. not sure where the vm.marist.edu pages point. in case you haven't gotten your answer - there is no problem w/ the upgrade. as long as your drivers are current - and you have space in your library - you should be ok. The biggest gotcha is that your old B tapes will all become readonly - because the E drive can't write the 128 track B format. All your new tapes written in E (256 track) format will reflect the proper capacity. If you are running mostly backups - and have a constant stream of migrations / reclamations - you can probably leave things alone. if your data is pretty static once it hits tape - then you might want to do move datas on those tapes. -john
Re: 3590E
we get BASF that say IBM and "under license of IBM." Current 'score' is: 2 tapes removed permanently due to repeated I/O write failures. A couple others that we have taken out and put back in for same problem ONCE. three returned for being dropped excessively (waiting to see if any others in that 'order' do that same) We aggressively clean our drives at around 35 mounts. Cleaning tapes cost $100.00 and its getting a little expensive. Tapes cost about $35. they are "J"s we may be getting an .edu discount. cheers ... joe.f. Joseph A Faracchio, Systems Programmer, UC Berkeley On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Debbie Lane wrote: Our tapes are IBM tapes. I would also be curious what tapes others are using. John, what brand of tapes are you using? -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E Keep in mind that there are currently three (3) manufacturers of 3590 media. Off the top of my head I can name two of them. Can this be nailed down to a particular media manufacturer? John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:20 PM To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager' Subject: RE: 3590E Our environment is a 3466-C00, 3494 library with 3590-E1A drives. We stocked it with 600 extended length cartridges that were initialized and labeled by a media supplier. To date, we have had NO media problems. We DID have a micro-code upgrade early on when the 3590-E1A's were reporting data problems. But, for the last six months, we are sailing along very nicely. I will attest to the stability and reliability of this technology. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com
Re: 3590E
Hello, can you tell me how I can get the "test media" option? Is it via the tapeutil utility? Best regards Gerhard --- Gerhard Rentschleremail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regional Computing Center tel. ++49/711/685 5806 University of Stuttgart fax: ++49/711/682357 Allmandring 30a D 70550 Stuttgart Germany -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ganu Sachin, IBM Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E Yes we do have this problem. 3590 E11 supports TEST MEDIA option. Before using the tape for the first time, we test the tape. It has failed while writing indicating on control panel writing / reading very fast and then resulting in failure. Also 2-3 tapes reports write-protected tape even if it is write-enable ( write-protect roller in proper position ). Any remedy for write-protect problem ? Regards Sachin Ganu IBM Global Services ( India ) C/o Siemens Kalwa Data Center (BVQI Certified ISO 9002) -Original Message- From: Debbie Lane [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E?
Re: 3590E
We also started using the 3590E's and one tape had to be physically removed from the tape drive - the tape snapped and had to be replaced. A few days earlier, someone in the tape library dropped a 3590E cartridge, but I was told that it was not damaged. The tape that got stuck is probably that "undamaged" tape... BTW we pay $60 for every one of those tapes. Arthur. -Original Message- From: Richard L. Rhodes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 5:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E We had a E-tape get stuck in a drive. The IBM CE showed up to work on it. After a while he came walking up to our desks holding the cartridge in one hand and yards of mangled tape in his other hand. He showed us a spot on the tape - there was a splice, and a very bad splice at that (ends were not lined up very well). Rick On 14 Feb 2001, at 12:35, Debbie Lane wrote: We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E? --- The information contained in this e-mail message, and any attachment thereto, is confidential and may not be disclosed without our express permission. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message, or any attachment thereto, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the message and all of its attachments. Thank you. Every effort is made to keep our network free from viruses. You should, however, check this e-mail message, as well as any attachment thereto, for viruses. We take no responsibility and have no liability for any computer virus which may be transferred via this e-mail message.
Re: 3590E
The tape with the splice was an Imation tape purchased through IBM. Rick On 15 Feb 2001, at 10:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...there was a splice... Rick - Yikes! Most bad. Could you post to ADSM-L what brand of tape that was? thanks, Richard
Re: 3590E
Our tapes are IBM tapes. I would also be curious what tapes others are using. John, what brand of tapes are you using? -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E Keep in mind that there are currently three (3) manufacturers of 3590 media. Off the top of my head I can name two of them. Can this be nailed down to a particular media manufacturer? John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:20 PM To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager' Subject: RE: 3590E Our environment is a 3466-C00, 3494 library with 3590-E1A drives. We stocked it with 600 extended length cartridges that were initialized and labeled by a media supplier. To date, we have had NO media problems. We DID have a micro-code upgrade early on when the 3590-E1A's were reporting data problems. But, for the last six months, we are sailing along very nicely. I will attest to the stability and reliability of this technology. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com
3590E 'K' Tapes
As far as I know, the *only* manufacturer of 'K' tapes in Imation. I recently upgraded my 3590 E1A drives to 2X, and purchased 3 cases of extended length tapes, all were boxed/wrapped from the factory, and indicated no shipping damage at all. When I went to label the NEW tapes, 2 out of 10 would give me an error indicating that there was a problem with the tape. On a second pass however, the tapes would *sometimes* label just fine. On the tapes that just refused to label, I opened the library and ran 'tape diagnostics' on them. The diags would fail. I sent 6 tapes off to Imation for testing: 2 of the tapes indicated 'shipping or handling damage', however Imation replaced them. 1 of the tapes indicated 'a microcode problem'. The tape and diagnostic were sent to IBM Tucson for inspection, and Imation replaced the tape. No report yet from IBM. 3 of the tapes were returned with 'no problem', and I put them in the library, and what do you know.. they labeled fine. After the tapes are labeled, I do not have any problems with them.. No I/O errors at all. I have another case of 30 that have not been labeled yet, and under Imations advise, I will have my CE present when I attempt to use them. Imation, I must admit, was very concerned, and quite willing to test the tapes. They were happy to explain the test process and sent me a detailed report along with the returned tapes. I am currently running D01D_22E microcode on the drives, but my CE just handed me D01D-250, which I hesitate to install until he gives me a 'fix' list. Cheers. Bob Booth
Re: 3590E
We have Imation tapes. Again, we had them initialized and labeled prior to delivery. We have had no problems. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Debbie Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E Our tapes are IBM tapes. I would also be curious what tapes others are using. John, what brand of tapes are you using? -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E Keep in mind that there are currently three (3) manufacturers of 3590 media. Off the top of my head I can name two of them. Can this be nailed down to a particular media manufacturer? John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:20 PM To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager' Subject: RE: 3590E Our environment is a 3466-C00, 3494 library with 3590-E1A drives. We stocked it with 600 extended length cartridges that were initialized and labeled by a media supplier. To date, we have had NO media problems. We DID have a micro-code upgrade early on when the 3590-E1A's were reporting data problems. But, for the last six months, we are sailing along very nicely. I will attest to the stability and reliability of this technology. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com
Re: 3590E K tape
WHile we've had some problems with K tapes, overall were very happy with them. Out of about 1600 tapes in use, we've have problems with about 6. Rick On 15 Feb 2001, at 12:50, Debbie Lane wrote: Thanks for all the input regarding this tape. Imation is the only manufacture. I have decided not to use the K tape because, they seem too fragile and the quality is not consistent. I need the extended capacity, but I also need to know that I have a high probability of a successful restore.
3590E
We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E?
Re: 3590E
oops, The drive is a 3590-E1A. The tapes in question are the "K" higher capacity tapes. -Original Message- From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E? I think you mean 3590E drives. We had one upgrade kit damaged in shipment, thanks to the trucking company. One upgrade kit had a defective card pack, and it took over three weeks for the replacement to arrive - from Mexico. From what I hear, the defect rate from that plant is pretty bad, with drives misconfigured or otherwise inoperable, and has become an issue within the company. Richard Sims, BU
Re: 3590E
What server code are you using? There has been some discussion over the last couple of weeks about problems like this...one report of a microcode fix, which we are i also in the process of trying out in our test environment and should hopefully put into production soon. Kathleen |+-- || Debbie Lane | || Debbie.Lane@INT| || ERMEC.COM | || | || 02/14/2001 04:40| || PM | || Please respond | || to "ADSM: Dist | || Stor Manager" | || | |+-- | || | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: (bcc: Kathleen M Hallahan/ISS/HQ/FHLMC) | | Subject: Re: 3590E | | oops, The drive is a 3590-E1A. The tapes in question are the "K" higher capacity tapes. -Original Message- From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E? I think you mean 3590E drives. We had one upgrade kit damaged in shipment, thanks to the trucking company. One upgrade kit had a defective card pack, and it took over three weeks for the replacement to arrive - from Mexico. From what I hear, the defect rate from that plant is pretty bad, with drives misconfigured or otherwise inoperable, and has become an issue within the company. Richard Sims, BU
Re: 3590E
2 of our first 20 tapes (IBM brand) were damaged. Our CE checked out the drives and the tapes. The CE and IBM support said that the tapes were probably damaged in shipment. We did not have this issue with the 3590's. -Original Message- From: Prather, Wanda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E One out of our first 100 tapes appears to have some sort of damage, can't read the internal label. Have you tried reinitializing them, or do you have a way to tell for sure that the tape is trashed? -Original Message- From: Debbie Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E?
Re: 3590E
Our environment is a 3466-C00, 3494 library with 3590-E1A drives. We stocked it with 600 extended length cartridges that were initialized and labeled by a media supplier. To date, we have had NO media problems. We DID have a micro-code upgrade early on when the 3590-E1A's were reporting data problems. But, for the last six months, we are sailing along very nicely. I will attest to the stability and reliability of this technology. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com
Re: 3590E
Debbie, We have a couple of instances where we have bought tapes for our 3590E drives and shortly after inserting them in the library we have encountered what looks like drive errors. The CE came out both times and replaced some components. The first time I was convinced that it truly was a drive problem. However the second time, the CE just about replaced the entire drive and we still had problems. It was then I noticed that several tapes from two different batches had been flagged READONLY. I moved the data off the tapes successfully and have not had any further problems. I am thinking that the quality of the tapes was not real consistent. Since the tapes in both instances were new, I now assume they were faulty from the start. Tom Bebee Welch Allyn MIME:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/14/2001 03:47:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @ INTERNET cc: (bcc: Tom Bebee/Corp/Skan/WelchAllyn) Subject: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E?
Re: 3590E
Debbie Hi, You are correct, there is sensitivity nature issue with the 3590 E (Extended length) tapes or "K" type or Condor. I was told that if you drop a "K" cartridge from a height as short as 4 inches would cause the tape to be unusable. I've not seen this in print but this indicates how seriously important good tape handling practices are. If you encounter a problem with the IBM "K" tapes exhibiting errors you should call 1-888-IBM-MEDIA and ask for replacement under warranty due to the fact that they will not "initialize" new out of the box. (this is important). Be sure to stress to yr tape operators (especially if you have off-site requirements) that the increased density of the K media (there are 256 lengthwise data tracks) DEMANDS proper handling. With the 3 to 1 compaction algorithm, these cartridges can contain over 100+ Giga Bytes of data, so the data lost risks are very high. As far as off-site shipment for vaulting purposes, it is suggested "turtle boxes" as outlined in the 3590 Tape Care and Handling Guide but are asking that these boxes also be double boxed with bubble pack to absorb any impact the cartridge might receive during shipment. Brgds, Othonas Debbie Lane wrote: oops, The drive is a 3590-E1A. The tapes in question are the "K" higher capacity tapes. -Original Message- From: Richard Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E? I think you mean 3590E drives. We had one upgrade kit damaged in shipment, thanks to the trucking company. One upgrade kit had a defective card pack, and it took over three weeks for the replacement to arrive - from Mexico. From what I hear, the defect rate from that plant is pretty bad, with drives misconfigured or otherwise inoperable, and has become an issue within the company. Richard Sims, BU
Re: 3590E
Keep in mind that there are currently three (3) manufacturers of 3590 media. Off the top of my head I can name two of them. Can this be nailed down to a particular media manufacturer? John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com -Original Message- From: Talafous, John G. Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:20 PM To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager' Subject: RE: 3590E Our environment is a 3466-C00, 3494 library with 3590-E1A drives. We stocked it with 600 extended length cartridges that were initialized and labeled by a media supplier. To date, we have had NO media problems. We DID have a micro-code upgrade early on when the 3590-E1A's were reporting data problems. But, for the last six months, we are sailing along very nicely. I will attest to the stability and reliability of this technology. John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken CompanyGlobal Software Support P.O. Box 6927 Data Management 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Phone: (330)-471-3390 Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com
Re: 3590E
Yes we do have this problem. 3590 E11 supports TEST MEDIA option. Before using the tape for the first time, we test the tape. It has failed while writing indicating on control panel writing / reading very fast and then resulting in failure. Also 2-3 tapes reports write-protected tape even if it is write-enable ( write-protect roller in proper position ). Any remedy for write-protect problem ? Regards Sachin Ganu IBM Global Services ( India ) C/o Siemens Kalwa Data Center (BVQI Certified ISO 9002) -Original Message- From: Debbie Lane [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3590E We recently started using 3590E tapes. Several of them are damaged. We talked to IBM support, and it sounds like other customers have had similar problems. I am wondering if any of you have experienced 3590E damaged in shipment? Have you had other problems with the 3590E?
Re: 3590e drives - What's your best *realistic* throughput?
I'm looking to know what I could *realistically* expect from a 3590e drive during a *restore*, assuming the tape drive is the bottleneck, ie. disk is fast enough, bus is wide enough, everything is local attached, machine is super zippy, and restoring BIG files. Certainly the theoretical max is something along the lines of 14 MB/s, but I'm wondering how close people really come to that? Oh, no! The Restore Question again! Check the list archives for many discussions on this topic. There is no simple answer because the circumstances of the restoral can vary so wildly. Backup/Restore product vendors typically use large-glob examples (e.g., huge databases) to be able to promote their product based upon performance with one or a few very large files. That's obviously deceiving in that it's just a big streaming operations with almost no overhead. In the real world we have thousands or millions of files of all sizes, spread over a considerable period of time and tapes. Establishing a file in a file system takes considerably more time than simply reading an established one, and so you can expect restorals to take considerably longer than backups of the same data, all other things being equal. Tape is a bottleneck as compared to disk when restoring small files spread over the tape, given tape repositioning time. But in backing up or restoring a single large file, disk is the bottleneck because of its rotational positioning delay, as compared to tape, which is always at the right position for the next byte of the file. In the ADSM/TSM standard paradigm of incremental forever, you should not expect to approach anything near maximum tape throughput specs in restorals because of all the other things going on: tape positioning to next file, TSM db lookups, operating system process dispatching in a mixed environment, file system overhead, etc. I don't believe that any experienced customers even consider tape throughput specs in daily practice because to many reality factors contribute to make it impossible to attain the maximums. With TSM you have myriad choices about how to set up your arrangement for optimal performance in one way or another, based upon how much you want to spend. The flexibility is the beauty of the product. You can go all the way from basic incremental with no collocation so as to be cheap with tapes at the expense of restoral performance, all the way up to volume images for optimum restoration speed. It's all a matter of your business case choices. Richard Sims, BU
Re: 3590e drives - What's your best *realistic* throughput?
Paul - Don't feel bad about knocking me about the head, as it's sometimes warranted and can do some good. :-) I won't use age as an excuse. Now let me try to provide a better answer... As for 3590E speed specifically: When getting a new and unfamiliar device in the shop, I advocate first getting some in-this-shop benchmark numbers before committing it to production, and stress-testing it to see what it can and cannot do. (We once encountered the very interesting case of a SCSI disk set which would lock up under intense activity. Only when we confronted the offbeat vendor about this, they revealed that in their engineering they were not adhering strictly to SCSI standards but instead tweaking their design according to what they found they could "get away with" under the operating systems they tested with.) In general it's best to get numbers with your current adapters, microcode, device drivers, and operating system level rather than depend upon vendor specs. If you're running Unix, I'd recommend taking one such 3590E drive away from TSM and running the 'dd' command against it, feeding in either a very large file or /dev/zero, where the latter will very rapidly fill the tape with binary zeros, with no file system activity. (Or you could write a short program to write a buffer until the tape fills, or use the 'tapeutil' command to drive it.) Then do the reverse, reading the tape via 'dd' and sending the output to /dev/null. This will give you essentially "ultimate" values for your configuration. Within TSM I would create a large file in a new file system. (A "sparse" file might be an idea, to save space and yet cause its reader to read what it will perceive to be much larger file than it is physically.) Use the client to back it up directly to tape, collocated by file system to get it on its own, fresh tape, and get timings. Now use Move Data and time how long it takes to copy that tape-isolated file tape-to-tape within the server. You could also try a migration to get comparative timings on that. That kind of thing. This should provide useful figures for you, inside and outside the application. Hope that's a more useful answer. Richard
3590e drives - What's your best *realistic* throughput?
I'm looking to know what I could *realistically* expect from a 3590e drive during a *restore*, assuming the tape drive is the bottleneck, ie. disk is fast enough, bus is wide enough, everything is local attached, machine is super zippy, and restoring BIG files. Certainly the theoretical max is something along the lines of 14 MB/s, but I'm wondering how close people really come to that? thanks in advance... Paul
Re: 3590e drives - What's your best *realistic* throughput?
I have setup environments where I have seen backup storage pools run 37GB per hour. So that is just over 10.5 MBps. -- Joshua S. Bassi Senior Technical Consultant Symatrix Technology, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Fielding Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3590e drives - What's your best *realistic* throughput? I'm looking to know what I could *realistically* expect from a 3590e drive during a *restore*, assuming the tape drive is the bottleneck, ie. disk is fast enough, bus is wide enough, everything is local attached, machine is super zippy, and restoring BIG files. Certainly the theoretical max is something along the lines of 14 MB/s, but I'm wondering how close people really come to that? thanks in advance... Paul
Re: 3590E Extended Length Tapes Feedback
We are using these K tapes and we don't have any problems at all.. "Del Toro, Eduardo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/09/2000 19:39:32 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Peter Schrijvers/BCS/BASF) Subject: 3590E Extended Length Tapes Feedback All, We are currently in the process of upgrading our 3590B tape drives to 3590E tape drives. We are currently considering changing our 3590 tapes from "J" type to the "K" type or extended length 3590 tapes. Any and all feedback - positive and negative - about the extended length (or "K" type) 3590 tapes will be greatly appreciated. As always all comments, concerns, questions and/or suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance for your feedback. * EDUARDO J. DEL TORO Lam Research Corporation 47320 Mission Falls Court Fremont, CA 94538-7822 * "The credit belongs to those people who are actually in the arena...who know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions to a worthy cause; who at best, know the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, fail while daring greatly...so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."-- Theodore Roosevelt **
Re: 3590E Extended Length Tapes Feedback
I can provide positive feedback on the 3590-K extended length cartridges. We have been using them for about two (2) months with no errors. All is well and the 40GB native capacity sure extended the life of our 3494 library! John G. Talafous IS Technical Principal The Timken Company Phone: (330)-471-3390 P.O. Box 6927 Fax : (330)-471-4034 1835 Dueber Ave. S.W. Canton, Ohio USA 44706-0927 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timken.com/
