<snip> I appears, this behavior can be attributed to CA-Disk. </snip>
It seems I was premature in this statement. The Version 1 backup was deleted last night. I now conclude that CA-DISK and dfHSM, at least in this respect perform in the same manner i.e. the "retain extra days" is added to the backup date, and, if less that today, the version is deleted. HTH, -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMS Retain Days Extra Backup Versions - question. Kees, et. al I have processed my test case. Management class attributes: Expire Non-usage 15 days No. of Backups DS Exists - 2 No. of Backups DS Deleted - 1 Retain Days Extra backups - 3 Retain Days Only backup - 3 Version 1 backed up 2012/06/27 Version 2 backed up 2012/06/28 According to Kees, the version 1 backup should have been deleted 2012/07/01. However, an HSM List command shows both versions still exist. Versions in excess of "No. of backups DS exists" are deleted immediately duiring the next secondary space management cycle. I appears, this behavior can be attributed to CA-Disk. Just to close the loop, I will post again 15 days after the version 1 backup was created (2012/07/12) or earlier if something changes. HTH, <snip> We don't have HSM, we have CA-DISK and it does as I described. >From the DFSMS manual I read (90% sure) that this is as designed: on day 100, >backup#1 receives an expiration date of day 60 and is deleted immediately. It would help if someone could confirm that HSM works the same. If so, a PMR against something working as designed won't stand a chance. If not, I can PMR CA-DISK. </snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
