See imbedded comments ... -----Original Message----- Hal Merritt
> We are being told that the library system is 100% SMS controlled. We have had robots in the past, but had never heard this as a requirement. > It this your experience? The ATL and 'tapes' are SMS managed the datasets on the 'tapes' are not. > We intend to rework all of what little tape processing we have to exploit the new units. Does anyone have some thoughts for a migration plan? Depends on what you want to do. Stack datasets on tape for efficient use of tapes? Minimize tapes sent offsite? Reduce mounts? Etc. If your current tapes can be used in the ATL you may just be able to insert them an use as is. > Did you have to invent some processing, such as off site tape ejects? You will probably want to look at OAM exits CBRUXENT and CBRUXVNL at a minimum. RMM may supply samples. RMM probably has a process for autoeject of tapes going offsite (probably an optional piece or RMM exit) > Any other things we should be aware of? Do you still have stand-alone drives? Mucking around with unlabeled (i.e. non-barcoded) tapes is a bit of a hassle but does work OK. What is your volume of inserts/ejects. If fairly large you can configure an internal 'wall' for bulk eject/insert (60-90 at a time) instead of using the hole in the door (10 at a time). You will probably have DR concerns if you don't have an ATL there too. See DFSMS OAM PISA for Tape Libraries (SC35-0427-02 at z/OS 1.4 level) There may be a relevant RedBook too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
