System and method for identifying failing drives or media in media library

1. A method of identifying failing media library components, comprising:

collecting data, wherein collecting data comprises querying one or more library components of a media library at intervals and receiving returned data, wherein querying one or more library components comprises:

sending Log Sense (LS) commands to a drive of the media library over a network at intervals;

sending one or more Inquiry commands to the drive or a media changer of the media library over the network;

sending Read Element Status (RES) commands to the media changer over the network at intervals;

storing the collected data in a repository, wherein storing the collected data in the repository comprises storing data returned in response to the LS commands, the Inquiry commands or the RES commands in the repository, wherein the collected data in the repository spans a plurality of intervals;

identifying a potentially failing tape or drive based on the collected data by analyzing the collected data to determine if the potentially failing tape would still have experienced an error rate of interest had the potentially failing tape not been loaded in the drive.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying a potentially failing tape or drive further comprises:

identifying a set of tapes that experienced error rates of interest;

recording a set of drive impact data that indicates whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded;

determining that a drive is failing based on the set of drive impact data.

3. The method of claim 2 , wherein the set of drive impact data indicates an impact of not considering each drive in which that tape was loaded on the error rate of that tape.

4. The method of claim 2 , further comprising:

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in a first drive:

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a first impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a second impact.

5. The method of claim 2 , further comprising:

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive;

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, determining if the error rate for the first tape would drop below a second threshold if the first tape had not been loaded in the first drive and if so record a first impact corresponding to a level of drop in the error rate of the first tape, otherwise record a second impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive and the first tape had been loaded in other drives, record a third impact, otherwise record a fourth impact.

6. The method of claim 2 , further comprising generating a report based on the set of impact data that comprises visual indicators for a set of tape/drive combinations that indicate for each tape/drive combination whether a corresponding tape would have had an error rate of interest had the tape not been loaded in the drive of that tape drive/combination.

7. The method of claim 6 , wherein each visual indicator corresponds to an impact in the set of drive impact data.

8. The method of claim 2 , wherein identifying a set of tapes that experienced error rates of interest, further comprises comparing error rates for tapes in the set of tapes to a threshold.

9. The method of claim 8 , further comprising: determining whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest above the threshold had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded and recording the result in the set of drive impact data.

10. A system for identifying failing tapes or drives comprising:

a repository storing error data collected from a media library;

a management station coupled to the repository, the management station comprising a processor, a computer readable storage medium and a set of computer executable instructions, the computer executable instructions comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

accessing the repository to identify a set of tapes that experienced error rates of interest;

recording a set of drive impact data that indicates whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded wherein the set of drive impact data was determined by analyzing collected data to determine if each tape would still have experienced the error rate of interest had the tape not been loaded in the one or more drives; and

outputting a report comprising visual indicators of whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded.

11. The system of claim 10 , wherein the set of drive impact data specifies for each tape, an impact of not considering each drive in which that tape was loaded on the error rate of that tape.

12. The system of claim 10 , further comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in a first drive:

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a first impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a second impact.

13. The system of claim 10 , comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive;

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, determining if the error rate for the first tape would drops below a second threshold if the first tape had not been loaded in the first drive and if so record a first impact corresponding to a level of drop in the error rate of the first tape, otherwise record a second impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive and the first tape had been loaded in other drives, record a third impact, otherwise record a fourth impact.

14. The system of claim 10 , wherein identifying a set of tapes that experienced error rates of interest, further comprises comparing error rates for tapes in the set of tapes to a threshold.

15. The system of claim 14 , wherein the instructions are further executable to perform the steps of: determining whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest above the threshold had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded and recording the result in the set of drive impact data.

16. A non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium storing a set of computer executable instructions, the computer executable instructions comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

identifying a set of tapes having an error rate of interest;

recording a set of drive impact data that indicates whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded wherein the set of drive impact data was determined by analyzing collected data to determine if each tape would still have experienced the error rate of interest had the tape not been loaded in the one or more drives;

outputting a report comprising visual indicators of whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest had that tape not been loaded in the one or more drives in which that tape was loaded.

17. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the set of drive impact data specifies for each tape, an impact of not considering each drive in which that tape was loaded on the error rate of that tape.

18. The computer program product of claim 17 , further comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in a first drive:

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a first impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, recording a second impact.

19. The computer program product of claim 17 , further comprising instructions executable to perform the steps of:

accessing a set of error data for a media library;

identifying a set of tapes having error rates of interest;

for a first tape from the identified set of tapes, determining whether the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive;

if the first tape would have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive, determining if the error rate for the first tape would drops below a second threshold if the first tape had not been loaded in the first drive and if so record a first impact corresponding to a level of drop in the error rate of the first tape, otherwise record a second impact;

if the first tape would not have experienced an error rate of interest had the first tape not been loaded in the first drive and the first tape had been loaded in other drives, record a third impact, otherwise record a fourth impact.

20. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein identifying a set of tapes that experienced error rates of interest, further comprises comparing error rates for tapes in the set of tapes to a threshold.

21. The computer program product of claim 20 , further comprising:

determining whether each tape in the identified set of tapes would still have experienced an error rate of interest above the threshold had that tape not been loaded in one or more drives in which that tape was loaded and recording the result in the set of drive impact data.