Well,
Here we've got a 3494, with the 3590E-C drive( Is that the same? ).
Here's q devclass output.
3590CART Sequential 2 3590E-C 3590- DRIVES
Now, I get really confused trying to sort out IBM part numbers vs. what vendors use to
describe IBMs products, but it sounds like you have at least the same disk drives as
we do ( though we're using the native 10GB tapes ). And I have the following script
to show the amount of data on all the tapes in a STG POOL.
select volume_name as "$1 Vol",est_capacity_mb AS "Est
Capacity",pct_utilized,(est_capacity_mb*pct_utilized*.01) AS written_mb from volumes
where stgpool_name=upper('$1')
the POINT of this all? Yes est_cap _SHOULD_ be reflecting a higher number than it is..
We're using the smaller tapes, and getting more than 18GBs on ( most of ) them. Maybe
changing the setting of FORMAT and that may help out with utilization of your tape
space. ( Of course, it might also render all of your tapes useless.. I've never messed
around with it )
-ed
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/01 01:34PM >>>
Hi,
Customer is using TSM V4.1 server on Windows 2000, 3494-ATL, 3590B1A drives which
should support the Extended Length cartridges and 3590 model K cartridges (20GB
uncompressed).
"q vol" reports: Estimate Capacity is about 18GB, Status is FULL, Pct Util is about
95-100% and Pct. Reclaimable Space is about 0-5% (There is no tape with more then
18GB).
Compression is done on the Drive side.
FORMAT = DRIVE is defined on the Devclass.
I would expect that the Estimate Capacity should indicate the actual capacity on the
tapes (after compression), regardless of what is defined on the Devclass.
Is this a real problem or only a report problem?
Any idea?
Nathan Himmel
Semech Software Marketing LTD.
Tel:(972)-3-5333144
Fax:(972)-3-5333132
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
