TSM checkin libv using file for volume list

Hello Experts

TSM 5.5.4
Windows 2008 R2

I've been attempting to use the vollist=FILE:path-to-file method to check in tapes from offsite. Here is my command;

checkin libv lib01 volli=FILE:c:\temp\vollist.txt status=scratch search=yes checklabel=barcode

Open in new window

The command completes successfully, but in the activity log I have "0 volume(s) found", hence nothing checked in.

In our case, the volumes are already in the hopper, not in the I/O bulk loader.

Anyone had similar issues?


John PopeIT ConsultantAsked:
Who is Participating?
John PopeConnect With a Mentor IT ConsultantAuthor Commented:
Ok.  I haven't resolved the 'FILE:filename' issue but I have skirted around it. I have decided to script the task instead and use the 'vollist=vol1,vol2' option by parsing the contents of the original file.

Going to leave open in case anyone fancies they can add to this.

Cheers for the support.

I believe you used wrong syntax (you shouldn't use FILE:).

checkin libv lib01 volli=vollist.txt status=scratch search=yes checklabel=barcode

since i do not know how tsm interprets windows, you may as well put the file vollist.txt into C:\program files\tivoli\tsm\... where you have the dsm.opt file

please note that the name of the file is case sensitive

hope this helps
John PopeIT ConsultantAuthor Commented:
Hi Max

Cheers for your offer.

This does not make a difference either.  I find it odd that the help pages say to use the 'FILE' syntax, I'm not sure it actually matters as I get the same message in the activity log;

10/07/2013 10:11:09      ANR2017I Administrator ADMIN issued command: CHECKIN
                          LIBVOLUME lib01 volli=FILE:C:\tsm\checkinvollist1.txt status=scratch search=yes checklabel=barco  (SESSION: 3638)
10/07/2013 10:11:09      ANR0984I Process 1928 for CHECKIN LIBVOLUME started in the
                          BACKGROUND at 10:11:09. (SESSION: 3638, PROCESS: 1928)
10/07/2013 10:11:09      ANR8422I CHECKIN LIBVOLUME: Operation for library LIB01
                          started as process 1928. (SESSION: 3638, PROCESS: 1928)
10/07/2013 10:11:10      ANR8431I CHECKIN LIBVOLUME process completed for library
                          LIB01; 0 volume(s) found. (SESSION: 3638, PROCESS:
10/07/2013 10:11:10      ANR0985I Process 1928 for CHECKIN LIBVOLUME running in the
                          BACKGROUND completed with completion state SUCCESS at
                          10:11:10. (SESSION: 3638, PROCESS: 1928)

Still trying.


Simplify Active Directory Administration

Administration of Active Directory does not have to be hard.  Too often what should be a simple task is made more difficult than it needs to be.The solution?  Hyena from SystemTools Software.  With ease-of-use as well as powerful importing and bulk updating capabilities.

the command is successful, but it seems that tsm server is not able to find any library volume !
Have you tried to issue "q req" after the checkin command ?
If you get a response you need to issue reply <number of request>.

If still no joy, try to do an audit library

John PopeIT ConsultantAuthor Commented:

Thanks again.

I see your logic, however the process would just hang there if there were any requests outstanding, in my situation the process completes 'successfully' straight away. It's not that.

I can checkin when I specify;


on the console, but not with the file; contents are;


Running the audit library isn't needed, I tried this.  Also, using the 'show slots' command I can verify the volumes are correctly located.

The volumes being checked in were DRM offsite in 'vault retrieve', then moved to 'onsiteretrieve' and now I want to check in as scratch.

Still trying.

Cheers, JP.
Hi JP,
maybe i figured it out ...
since your tapes are already into the library, you may try and deactivate the parameter checklabel into the command, i.e.:

checkin libv lib01 volli=vollist.txt status=scratch search=yes checklabel=no

and then you probably need to do a

q req

and issue a reply

it may work out fine, let me know
John PopeIT ConsultantAuthor Commented:
My workaround works nicely. Plus my script became more useful with additional functions in the end too :)
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.