Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-08 Thread George Lesho
745-6850 phone/vmail -Original Message- From: Kent J. Monthei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 3494 Libraries and have observed

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-08 Thread David Longo
man [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/05/2001 08:17:44 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: George Lesho/Partners/AFC) Fax to: Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour I'm using ACSLS (STK). When I'm doing something like a s

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-08 Thread Richard Sims
...the tape that "dismount may be delayed" due to rebuilding the VCR on the tape. Priorities can't bypass this - I think it is more a tape media/drive issue than *SM... Good thought, David. As you say, the Activity Log should reflect such a problem. If a Volume Control Region problem, be

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-08 Thread George Lesho
bject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour I also have a 3575 and most of thsi "dismounting" may be due to rebuilding the VCR on the tape header. (This is something used by Magstar tapes). If you check actlog during this time you will propbably see an entry for the tape that "dis

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-07 Thread Joe Faracchio
there was an APAR but I do think I observerd this at early 3.7 versions. Regards, Sheelagh -- MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:13:13 -0800 From: Joe Faracchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... snipped... Now with 3.7.2 I'm

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-06 Thread Joe Faracchio
, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 3494 Libraries and have observed behavior consistent with that described by Joseph in the original email - an idle mount will be immediately dismounted

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-06 Thread Joe Faracchio
-2001 19:57 Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ADSM-L cc:(bcc: Kent J Monthei/CIS/PHRD/SB_PLC) Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour I thought it always worked this way. At one time I was going to put in a request to have two mount retention times. One for when

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-06 Thread Joe Faracchio
trator Freightliner, LLC (503) 745-6850 phone/vmail -Original Message- From: Kent J. Monthei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 349

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-06 Thread Joe Faracchio
Steffan , Joek, no, not really. As I stated originally, previously in 3.1.2.20 I observed the tapes being dismounted as soon as another request of any kind was pending regardless of their retention period. And I've observed tapes staying mounted for the full retention period when

AW: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-06 Thread Rupp Thomas (Illwerke)
We are on 3.7.2 and we see the same "ugly" behavior. Does anyone know if TSM 4.1 acts the same way? Kind regards Thomas Rupp Vorarlberger Illwerke AG MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEL:++43/5574/4991-251 FAX:++43/5574/4991-820-8251

tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-05 Thread Joe Faracchio
I recently upgraded from 3.1.2.20 to 3.7.2.0 and notice a very annoying behaviour. The system keeps an idle tape mounted for the full retention period specified despite the pending mounts that are waiting. when / where will this be fixed??? thanks ... joe.f. Joseph A Faracchio, Systems

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-05 Thread Joel Fuhrman
I thought it always worked this way. At one time I was going to put in a request to have two mount retention times. One for when there are no pending request for a drive and the other for when there are pending request. On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Joe Faracchio wrote: I recently upgraded from

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-05 Thread Kent J. Monthei
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ADSM-L cc:(bcc: Kent J Monthei/CIS/PHRD/SB_PLC) Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour I thought it always worked this way. At one time I was going to put in a request to have two mount retention times. One for when there are no pending

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-05 Thread Alex Paschal
. Monthei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 3494 Libraries and have observed behavior consistent with that described by Joseph in the original email

Re: tape mount retention behaviour

2001-02-05 Thread Joel Fuhrman
: Kent J. Monthei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tape mount retention behaviour We also use ADSM 3.1.2.20 (for Solaris) with IBM 3494 Libraries and have observed behavior consistent with that described by Joseph