primer:library_management
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| primer:library_management [2017/05/30 13:53] – created jthatcher | primer:library_management [2025/01/21 22:07] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | === Library Management === | + | ====== Library Management |
| - | As tape libraries grow, it becomes increasingly costly to store all tape volumes | + | As tape libraries grow, it becomes increasingly costly to store all tape Volumes |
| Having a Library Management standard in place will ensure that tapes can be easily and reliably located should they be required. | Having a Library Management standard in place will ensure that tapes can be easily and reliably located should they be required. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| Conceptually, | Conceptually, | ||
| - | 1. | + | - **Arbitrary Library Management:** this is where the tape librarian puts a tape in a specific location and records the location within the tape management database. |
| + | - **Allocation Library Management: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Each of these two methodologies have advantages and disadvantages, | ||
| + | ===== Library Management Standards ===== | ||
| + | * That the system records the current location of a tape, and in the event that it is moving, also the target location. | ||
| + | * That the system records the location of a tape down to an individual single tape slot. | ||
| + | * That a Barcode or RFID reader confirms the storage of each tape. | ||
| + | * That the slotting design avoids large numbers that can be forgotten or confused during tape handling. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Library Management Key Performance Indicators ===== | ||
| - | 2. Allocation Library Management: this is where the system assigns a location for a tape to be stored and the tape librarian confirms with the system that the tape has been placed in that location. | ||
| - | + | * Number of tapes found to be in the wrong location. | |
| - | Each of these two methodologies have advantages and disadvantages, | + | |
| - | Library Management Standards | + | |
| - | That the system records the current location of a tape, and in the event that it is moving, also the target location. | + | |
| - | + | | |
| - | That the system records the location of a tape down to an individual single tape slot. | + | |
| - | + | | |
| - | That a barcode or RFID reader confirms the storage of each tape. | + | |
| - | + | <- primer: | |
| - | That the slotting design avoids large numbers that can be forgotten or confused during tape handling. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Library Management KPIs | + | |
| - | Number of tapes found to be in the wrong location. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Number of tapes which can be accurately picked and pulled per minute. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Time spent in double handling tapes. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Regularity of physical audits. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Time spent in correcting errors found during physical audits. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Number of tapes considered permanently lost | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Number of tapes that cannot be located but are not considered permanently lost. | + | |
primer/library_management.1496152427.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/01/21 22:07 (external edit)
