On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Magura, Curtis wrote: > I would agree. We are using both J and K carts in the same library, same > stgpool same devclass...etc. IBM installed the MES to the 3494 and the 3590 > E1A's. We installed a newer version of drivers(atape 5.1.3.0, atldd 4.0.8.0) > on AIX (4.3.3,TSM 3.7.3). Used TSM to label the new tapes and check them in. I also have a 3494 with 5 3590-E1A's, and a mix of J and K tapes. The same library also is shared with a VM and MVS system that uses J tapes in 3590-B1A drives (non-XL capable). Note that B drives, if MES'ed to support XL tapes, can also use both J and K media, but at half the capacity of the E drives. > > > Everything is working. > > Per TSM (q vol) the most we have been able to put on a tape so far is a > little over 81GB. > > Curt Magura > Lockheed Martin EIS > Gaithersburg Md. > > -----Original Message----- > From: bbullock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 1:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Moving from single length to extended length 3590 cartridge > t apes. > > > Woah, woah woah, I think you are talking 2 different things here. > > I believe the question being asked is "Can the single length 3590 > tapes (denoted by a 'j' on them) co-exist in a library with the new extended > length tapes (denoted by a 'k' on them)?" I believe that the answer is yes, > as long as your tape drives are the 3590E drives. The 3590E tape drives will > know the length of the tape when it mounts it (because of the little colored > tabs below the label) and write it correctly. The 3590E writes out 256 > tracks regardless of the tape length. > > I believe that the question you have answered is, "How do I go about > upgrading my 3590B or 3590Ultra drives to the 3590E drives and use the same > tapes?" In this case, there is a difference in the number of tracks it is > writing and the procedure that is described below is valid. > > We have upgraded to the 3590E drives but have yet to put in any of > the extended length tapes to test this theory, so I'm not 100% sure of this, > but that is the way IBM has explained it to us. > > Thanks, > Ben > Micron Technology > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ilja G. Coolen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 1:22 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Moving from single length to extended length > > 3590 cartridge > > tapes. > > > > > > Yes you can, but you need to upgrade to at least 3.1.2.50. We > > needed to do > > so. Lower levels will not be able to use the extended length feature. > > But when you use both tape lengths at the same time you have to do the > > following first, or else you will end up having many > > read/write errors. This > > is because the difference in number of tracks. > > > > 1. update all single length tapes to access=reado > > 2. move alle data of all single length tapes to scratch tapes. > > 3. update all tapes back to access=readw > > > > The tape drives will not be able write 256 tracks on a 128 > > tracks tape. > > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Irene > > Braun > > Verzonden: dinsdag 29 augustus 2000 20:00 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Moving from single length to extended length 3590 cartridge > > tapes. > > > > > > We are currently using single length 3590 cartridge tapes and > > would like > > to move to using extended length tapes. We are running ADSM > > 3.1.2.40 on > > AIX. > > Can the two different tape length types co-exist in ADSM and > > if so how can > > this be accomplished? Does it entail defining a second > > virtual library with > > a separate device class etc. Would it be simple to manage? Is there > > any > > online documentation discussing this procedure? > > Thanks, Irene > > EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Steve Roder, University at Buffalo VM Systems Programmer UNIX Systems Administrator (Solaris and AIX) ADSM Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | (716)645-3564 | http://ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu/~tkssteve)
