>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:50:25 -0500, Andrew Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is this really a good answer? I know it's "working as designed", as > IBM is sometimes fond of saying. TSM knows whats on what tapes. It > seems like, unless the processing required to do it would be > substantial, TSM could split the processes so this doesn't occur, at > least as often. With non-collocated tapes, I can see that it could > happen sometimes, but I would think TSM could be smart enough to > minimize it. A threshold would be nice: So I could express the idea "If you've waited more than 10 minutes for a volume, then skip it, in that case I prefer the 'skipped work' failure mode to the 'stalled process' failure mode" I've had as many as 4 tape drives idle, (2 processes, one reader one writer each) waiting for an in-use volume, and sometimes it's been hours before I noticed them. - Allen S. Rout
