You are a little vague when you say "It never writes any data to the 1 TB files." Are you saying that even when the 10x100GB volumes are filled, it refuses to fill the 1TB volumes? It hangs/dies/sits quietly in this situation?
Regardless, I _imagine_ this should be a valid volume size. Not to say its a good idea of any sort. I see that for FILE device classes, the MAXCAPACITY parameter is limited by the largest file allowed on the given filesystem, which, by your reference, is only limited by the NTFS volume size. Microsoft says 16 TB: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766145.aspx Regardless again, its probably not a good idea to define such volumes. I see no benefit, and its dangerous, uncharted waters that you are subjecting your clients' data to. As these 1TB volumes have no data in them, you are completely free to redefine them or consider FILE instead. Good luck! On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Christian Svensson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all *SMers, > I just have a quick question for you all. I met a customer today where they > tried to setup a 4 TB Diskpool on Windows Server 2003 TSM Server. > And the person who setup the volume did setup something like this 10 x > 100GB and 3 x 1TB. All the TSM Client backups went fine but TSM Server did > only send in data to the Diskpool Volumes that was 100GB Each. It never > write any data to the 1TB files. > > I have never see anyone create a 1TB Diskpool Volume, so my question is, > have anyone done that before and is it even supported? > NTFS should have support for that kind of size of files but does TSM > Support it? > > More info about NTFS max sizes: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > > > > Best Regards > Christian Svensson > > Cell: +46-70-325 1577 > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Skype: cristie.christian.svensson -- Sam Rawlins
