IBM System Storage TS3100 Tape library; unnecessary tape verification by restoring object?

[<elehti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am I doing some unnecessary, over-the-top tape verification with our IBM
System Storage TS3100 tape library?
Are steps 5 and 6 actually needed so as to confirm that the tapes are
readable and that data can be restored from them?
Does the TS3100 tape unit have more than adequate verification
algorithms in it that confirm that the data on tape is readable and
restorable?


Step 1:  GO BACKUP and save most user libraries and other objects to the
LTO4 tapes.
Step 2:  Seven libraries get saved  with these parms.  E.g.
         SAVLIB     LIB(CRMSAT) DEV(TAP01) ENDOPT(*LEAVE) +  
             SAVACT(*SYNCLIB) SAVACTWAIT(360) +     
             SAVACTMSGQ(QSYSOPR) ACCPTH(*YES)       

Step 3: Save some of the IFS folders:  e.g.
        SAV DEV('/QSYS.LIB/TAP01.DEVD') OBJ(('/WWW')) OUTPUT(*PRINT)


Step 4:  Rewind and DSPTAP   
Step 5: DLTF a file from library VERIFYBKUP and get ready to restore
this file from tape
Step 6:  RSTOBJ from tape the file that step 5 deleted.

Step 7:  CHKTAP     DEV(TAP01) ENDOPT(*UNLOAD)  to unload this tape and
mount next tape for tomorrow



-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DrFranken
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 11:37 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: speed diff ethernet half and full duplex

Ahh well that does explain some things!

FYI as a 'good average' or 'rule of thumb' a T1 circuit can move 
approximately 1CD per hour. You didn't say that was your connection but 
if it is that's 51.2 hours for your 32 GB file.  Dual T1s would be just 
under 26 hours.

This is a case though where the send and receive buffer settings 
(CHGTCPA) are critical. Given the 'Internet' is in the middle latency is

going to be at least as important as the speed. In this case buffer 
sizes of 1MB or possibly more would help throughput a lot.

     - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 11/13/2011 11:18 PM, Jim Franz wrote:
> ...same local network. They are not, and that's where we ended up.
> The internet pipe was determined to be "tiny...", so that even the 10M
> ethernet on one sys was more than the pipe allowed.
> They are going to write to a local network external drive, and
overnight to
> the other site.
> Thanks for all the responses.
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk Goins"<kirkgoins@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion"<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: speed diff ethernet half and full duplex
>
>
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Kirk Goins<kirkgoins@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > > I am curious you say "Systems have no tape compatibility, and
opposite
> > > sides of the country."   Does mean they aren't on the same local
network?
> > > If so then the limiting factor is the data connection between the 2
> > > sites,
> > > not the local switches or port speed/duplex.
> > >
> > > If they are local, I have had systems at times that were set to
*AUTO for
> > > speed and duplex 'say' they were running at 100 and FULL but that
wasn't
> > > what I was getting. Hard coding the line to 100 Full or the Switch
seemed
> > > to fix the issue.