Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Oooh, I like that idea. I had no idea that the LTO2 drives worked that way. Indeed if the 3592s work that way, I would love the WWN to stay the same when the drives are swapped out. Now, if I could only find some documentation to tell me if it indeed worked that way Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kauffman, Tom Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Ben -- No *real* idea on the 3592 hard/soft addressing -- but the LTO2 drives in a 3584 use a synthetic wwn based on 3584 serial number and drive position (frame and slot) so the wwn doesn't change if the drive gets swapped. So -- my guess would be that 'hard' addressing would be the drive's native wwn and 'soft' addressing would be a synthetic wwn based on s/n, frame, and slot. This may have something to do with your cfgmgr issue. Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Bullock Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Ben -- No *real* idea on the 3592 hard/soft addressing -- but the LTO2 drives in a 3584 use a synthetic wwn based on 3584 serial number and drive position (frame and slot) so the wwn doesn't change if the drive gets swapped. So -- my guess would be that 'hard' addressing would be the drive's native wwn and 'soft' addressing would be a synthetic wwn based on s/n, frame, and slot. This may have something to do with your cfgmgr issue. Tom Kauffman NIBCO, Inc -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Bullock Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
The "hard" versus "soft" option that the IBM CE gave me had nothing to do with the zoning on the switch or the SAN, it had to do with the software inside of the 3592 drive. Some setting in the drive/cradle that he has to set upon installation. As far as the drives and the FC cards on the switch, we are zoning it by the WWN, which you say is recommended, so I'm pretty sure we have got that correct. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CORP Rick Willmore Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Ben, I will answer this question according to my knowledge of SANs which I am sure someone on this list is much more adapt than myself. I like soft zoning because (AFAIK) hard zoning is on a per port basis. ie.. port 1 is for zone BLAH and port 2 is for a different port. So the device name (WWN) is not associated with the zone rather the port number is. I believe most people have adapted soft zoning rather than hard but again I have limited experience and none with tape libraries. If you have a new device with a new WWN you should just have to reconfigure the zone on the switch to accept the new device (WWN). I am unfamiliar with the TSM side but if the device name changes on the OS you will have to change the path's. Someone should verify this for you because I am just extrapolating from my SAN experience and my limited Fiber Channel attached tape libraries (3584) R. -Original Message- From: Ben Bullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it vi
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Ben, I will answer this question according to my knowledge of SANs which I am sure someone on this list is much more adapt than myself. I like soft zoning because (AFAIK) hard zoning is on a per port basis. ie.. port 1 is for zone BLAH and port 2 is for a different port. So the device name (WWN) is not associated with the zone rather the port number is. I believe most people have adapted soft zoning rather than hard but again I have limited experience and none with tape libraries. If you have a new device with a new WWN you should just have to reconfigure the zone on the switch to accept the new device (WWN). I am unfamiliar with the TSM side but if the device name changes on the OS you will have to change the path's. Someone should verify this for you because I am just extrapolating from my SAN experience and my limited Fiber Channel attached tape libraries (3584) R. -Original Message- From: Ben Bullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
We're running a similar config, so I'm curious about the list response on this one as well. One additional question: I think I saw a message about TSM being able to keep track of tape drives by their serial numbers. Anyone have a pointer to docs on how this feature works, and what the caveats are, if any? Thanks, [RC] "Ben Bullock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: "ADSM: Dist cc: Stor Manager" Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10/27/2004 01:55 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" |---| | [ ] Secure E-mail | |---| Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak == IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains information that may be confidential or privileg
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Matthew (and others in the group), Just this week we put in our 2 test 3592 drives and started playing with them. These are sweet. So far they are running a little over 2X the speed of the 3590E drives, and we have yet to test the capacity. We've been able to test out the alternate pathing, dynamic load balancing, etc.. It's all through a SAN, so we have tested the zoning, etc. Failovers work as expected with no interruption to the TSM server at all. Very nice. AIX 5.2, TSM 5.2.1.3, Atape 9.0.7.0, atldd 5.5.1.0, 3592 drives, 3490 library. All has gone smoothly until we went to simulate a failed drive where we would swap it out for a new one. It didn't go well, with TSM or the OS not able to see the new drive correctly. When I tried to 'cfgmgr' it back in, it gave me these errors: root:># cfgmgr Method error (/usr/lib/methods/cfgppa_isa -l ppa0 ): 0514-038 Error loading kernel extension. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt0 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. Method error (/etc/methods/cfgtsmdd -l mt1 ): 0514-051 Device to be configured does not match the physical device at the specified connection location. I had to remove these 2 "mt" devices to get it to stop erroring. That's a new one to me... I have 2 questions: 1: During the installation of the tape drives the IBM CE asked if we wanted "hard" or "soft" addressing. His instructions say to do HARD, but then his support folks said "soft", what should it be? I'll be calling this in to IBM, but was curious if anybody here had an answer. 2: On our switch we are zoning the drives and FC adapters by WWN. Doing it this way, am I going to have to totally remove and recreate a drive when I swap it out? (i.e. remove from TSM, the OS, unzone the switch. Replace drive, re-configure it all back in.). Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
==> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Bullock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Won't I be OK having the 3590 and 3592 drives in the same scratch and > private categories? The TSM server is smart enough to know which scratch > tapes can go in which drives... No? Is that a wrong assumption on my part? I think the 3494 will fail to mount them (i.e. won't attempt it) , but TSM doesn't care, they're just volumes. Check them in in the right devclass, and all will be good. - Allen S. Rout
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
==> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Prather, Wanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have a 3494 with 3 3590 tape drives, TSM 5.2.2 on AIX 5. > We will be adding 5 new 3592 tape drives to the 3494, also for use with TSM. > To implement those new 3592 tape drives with TSM, is it sufficient to just > define new drives & device classes pointing to the same TSM library > definition? > Or do we need to define a second logical library? Did this a bit ago. New library, new categories in the 3494 for the 3592 tapes. New devclass (obviously) - Allen S. Rout
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Gracias, that just saved me a days worth of troubleshooting and cursing ;-) Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Bingo - just what I needed! Thanks Jonathan! -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Siegle Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Ben Bullock wrote: > Hmm... Another "new library definition" vote. > > Oh and IBM votes yes too.. http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/ v5r2 /AIX/5.2.1.0/TSMSRVAIX5210.README.SRV . Look for the section on "3494 library particulars/changes" . -Jonathan
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Bingo - just what I needed! Thanks Jonathan! -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Siegle Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Ben Bullock wrote: > Hmm... Another "new library definition" vote. > > Oh and IBM votes yes too.. http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/v5r2 /AIX/5.2.1.0/TSMSRVAIX5210.README.SRV . Look for the section on "3494 library particulars/changes" . -Jonathan
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Ben Bullock wrote: Hmm... Another "new library definition" vote. Oh and IBM votes yes too.. http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/tivoli-storage-management/maintenance/server/v5r2/AIX/5.2.1.0/TSMSRVAIX5210.README.SRV . Look for the section on "3494 library particulars/changes" . -Jonathan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Ben Bullock wrote: ... Won't I be OK having the 3590 and 3592 drives in the same scratch and private categories? The TSM server is smart enough to know which scratch tapes can go in which drives... No? Is that a wrong assumption on my part? Watch out for computers - they tend to do just what you tell them to. Think back to the earliest days of the 3494, when it handled the mutually incompatible 3490 and 3590 - requiring separate category codes. Same situation with 3590 and 3592. Checkin is via Library definition, and incompatible devices require distinct category code specs, and so separate Library definitions. We'll have to deal with more complexity in the transition, but, then, consider how much we get paid to do so... Richard Sims
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Thanks for the review and hints. I ~am~ looking forward to the new library manager so we can get the web GUI. Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Glanville Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Hmm... Another "new library definition" vote. In my case, I will be upgrading 1/2 of the drives to 3592, migrating all the data to the new format and then upgrading the rest of the 3590s. In the end, it will all look the same except I have new drives. Won't I be OK having the 3590 and 3592 drives in the same scratch and private categories? The TSM server is smart enough to know which scratch tapes can go in which drives... No? Is that a wrong assumption on my part? Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Siegle Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494 Prather, Wanda wrote: > We have a 3494 with 3 3590 tape drives, TSM 5.2.2 on AIX 5. > > We will be adding 5 new 3592 tape drives to the 3494, also for use > with TSM. > > To implement those new 3592 tape drives with TSM, is it sufficient to > just define new drives & device classes pointing to the same TSM > library definition? > Hi Wanda, I defined a new library definition with the same device name(/dev/lmcpX) because I wanted the volume categories to be different. Then I defined the devclass/drive/path stuff.. We also had to buy a new LM to support the drives. -Jonathan
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
Prather, Wanda wrote: We have a 3494 with 3 3590 tape drives, TSM 5.2.2 on AIX 5. We will be adding 5 new 3592 tape drives to the 3494, also for use with TSM. To implement those new 3592 tape drives with TSM, is it sufficient to just define new drives & device classes pointing to the same TSM library definition? Hi Wanda, I defined a new library definition with the same device name(/dev/lmcpX) because I wanted the volume categories to be different. Then I defined the devclass/drive/path stuff.. We also had to buy a new LM to support the drives. -Jonathan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
When we upgraded we needed a new library defined in TSM to use the 3592's with different private/scratch categories, and device class's, drives, etc.. Not a different 'logical' library defined on the 3494 library manager. That may have worked too, but it depends on how particular you want to be as to which drives/slots are available to each host connected to the library. 3592's have been good. So far after 9 months use of 500 tapes and 6 drives. 2 tapes had I/O problems, no serious problem in data lost, TSM's 'restore volume' cleaned it up in minutes. some drives have just needed code upgrades to remove minor problems. One had 'clean me' displayed permanantly, it went way after that. One was replaced, but it was bad from the factory on initial installation. Try to do the code upgrades for the drives from the Host's fiber/scsi. When the IBM SE pushed it via the Library manager it took hours instead of minutes. The web interface on the upgraded library manager is great! No longer do you have to login to the library manager console to find out why 'operator intervention' is required... You can check it from your desk and decide to call in IBM to fix the problem or just unload the tapes that wanted to come out of the I/O slots. My biggest issue is that the server we have connected to those 6 drives can't push data fast enough to them, they can go much faster! Matthew Glanville Eastman Kodak
Re: Adding 3592's to a 3494
I don't have an answer for you, but in 3 weeks, we will be doing just that. I'm thinking we will need to define a new devclass, drives, paths & then storagepools but I was hoping/thinking that the library device would just remain the same. I'll let you know in about 3 weeks unless you are doing your upgrade before then. If you are upgrading before me, please let me know what you find out. Thanks, Ben -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Adding 3592's to a 3494 We have a 3494 with 3 3590 tape drives, TSM 5.2.2 on AIX 5. We will be adding 5 new 3592 tape drives to the 3494, also for use with TSM. To implement those new 3592 tape drives with TSM, is it sufficient to just define new drives & device classes pointing to the same TSM library definition? Or do we need to define a second logical library? Thanks! Wanda Prather "* I/O, I/O, It's all about I/O *" -(me)
