Thats true TSM will stop me from trying to relabel. In that case what would your suggestion be for moving data from one tape labeled 100001L1 to a new tape labeled 100002. Keep in mind they "should" all be in the same library but it will only be able to read the shorter of the 2 labels. The background surrounding this is something along the lines of what your previous recomendation was. I tried to do a DR at a sungard site and the moron admin either didnt want to or couldnt figure out how to change his 3584 to read the extended barcodes for me to restore (even though ibm was on the phone telling him how to do it). I am currently moving to a new library and I think I should follow your advice and move to using the non-extended barcode format but I need to "move data" to the newer tapes from my older library to my newer one. Suggestions?
R. -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of TSM_User Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LTO version on tapes Sorry if I mislead you, DO NOT, try to label a tape that has data on it. TSM shouldn't even let you do that. If you label it in your new library then you will loose your data. I only meant to relabel a tape after it had turned to scratch. Again, this is only a suggestion to the tapes with the L1 on them out of the old library and into the new library. CORP Rick Willmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Will the database be updated correctly with the newly labeled tapes? Ie.. if I have data on a tape that has an L1 and that is what the database knows as the tape with that particular data and I go to relabel the tape w/o the L1 will there be an issue ? Will I then no longer be able to access the data on that tape if I relabel or will the database be updated to reflect the change? R. -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of TSM_User Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LTO version on tapes If this is an IBM library (ie. 3583 or 3584) it is set via the front panel of the library. With some STK libraries it can't be set. We have an STK L40 an IBM 3583. Our volsers has L1 at the end on our IBM library. We wanted to put those tapes in the STK library but we couldn't. See the internal label had the L1 on it as well so when it mounted the tape the external volser didn't match the internal volser and we got an error. Anyway, I explained all that because I would stay away from using the L1, L2 or L3. It would not be wise in my opinion to have a volume called 000001L1 and 000001L2 in your library. If you don't need that then you shouldn't need the L1 to show up. If you are moving tapes from library to library then you may have a problem. You could of course as you move into the new library relable the tapes. "Prather, Wanda" wrote: This is a function of your library. It will be in your library operations manual. Usually it's something you set with the front panel menus. Before you can make the change though, note you will have to reinitialize your tapes with LABEL LIBV. This will destroy any data currently on the tapes. Wanda Prather "I/O, I/O, It's all about I/O" -(me) -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iain Barnetson Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cache Hit % below 99% Importance: High Does any one know how I can get the LTO version to appear at the end of the volume numbers in TSM? If I q libvol the volumes in my old library & stg pool have "L1" as a suffix, but the volumes in my new library & stg pool don't. Any ideas how to switch this on for my new library or stg pool? Iain -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU Sent: 20 January 2005 15:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Cache Hit % below 99% I kinda have to agree in that I have seen weirdnesses when increasing the buffpoolsize as per the recommendations. On a fairly horsey Dell box with 4GB of RAM and running the latest RH SMP server, when I increased the buffpoolsize to 512MB, everything seemed to slow down, when it comes to the TSM server responding to administration type requests, etc. When it comes to cache/ram sizes, I have see other situations (not specifically TSM) where the recommendation was to NOT make the allocated memory too large since it caused high CPU). "Warren, Matthew (Retail)" Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 01/20/2005 10:32 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Cache Hit % below 99% ? For a long time I have believed (fairly sure originally told by IBM) that the method is to increase the buffpool size untill cache hit goes over 99% Talking to a colleague, we really don't see how reducing bufpool size can increase the cache hit% Can anyone explain what we are missing? Thanks, Matt. _-'-_ -|- -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joni Moyer Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 2:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cache Hit % below 99% Hello! I just wanted to thank everyone for suggestions and help with this matter! I changed the bufpoolsize to 419430, which is 10% of the physical memory, and then reset the bufpool and now my cache hit % is 100%. At this point, until I see otherwise, I am going to conclude that I had the bufpoolsize setting too high at 524288. I will continue to monitor the cache hit % of the database, but I believe the problem to be solved. Thank you again! ******************************** Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************** "Curtis Stewart" AWSON.COM> To Sent by: "ADSM: [email protected] Dist Stor cc Manager" Subject .EDU> Re: Cache Hit % below 99% 01/20/2005 09:33 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" .EDU> What is your buffpool setting? Run "query option" and look for the buffpoolsize. Look in the dsmserv.opt file and read the comments about this parameter, then look in the server manual for this too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joni Moyer Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" 01/20/2005 07:19 AM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" To [email protected] cc Subject Cache Hit % below 99% Hello All! I have noticed that the cache hit % is below 99%. This is a newly defined TSM 5.2.2.5 server on an AIX 5.2 OS. Are there any special parameters/definitions that could contribute to the percentage being so low? Thanks! Available Space (MB): 24,576 Assigned Capacity (MB): 19,484 Maximum Extension (MB): 5,092 Maximum Reduction (MB): 15,000 Page Size (bytes): 4,096 Total Usable Pages: 4,987,904 Used Pages: 45,207 Pct Util: 0.9 Max. Pct Util: 0.9 Physical Volumes: 3 Buffer Pool Pages: 131,072 Total Buffer Requests: 132,692 Cache Hit Pct.: 95.15 Cache Wait Pct.: 0.00 Backup in Progress?: No Type of Backup In Progress: Incrementals Since Last Full: 0 Changed Since Last Backup (MB): 0.73 Percentage Changed: 0.41 ******************************** Joni Moyer Highmark Storage Systems Work:(717)302-6603 Fax:(717)302-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************** ___________________________ Disclaimer Notice __________________________ This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us, delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies. Any distribution or copying without our prior permission is prohibited. Internet communications are not always secure and therefore Powergen Retail Limited does not accept legal responsibility for this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Powergen Retail Limited. Registered addresses: Powergen Retail Limited, Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry, CV4 8LG. Registered in England and Wales No: 3407430 Telephone +44 (0) 2476 42 4000 Fax +44 (0) 2476 42 5432 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
