>
> Our workstation manager suggested to her Unix administrators that they use
> my ADSM offering to backup their Unix (Sun & Ultrix) servers.
>
> And being the *good* Unix citizens that they are they argued (successfully)
> that they *have to* do level zero backups and so there's *no* reason to
> duplicate backups again with ADSM to VM.  (i.e. I could not provide them
> with a 'complete' disaster recovery tool that would eliminate their
> having to do backups)
>
I would not trust my data to a mainframe either. It's based on the UNIX
administrators distrust of mainframes. Also you may find that their background
of Sun and DEC means they have a very low opinion of IBM and their products.
I still do and I've ended up working with AIX against my better judgement.
It may be unjustified but it exists you are going to have to prove it can be
trusted and you are probably seen as someone justifying a VM mainframe. If you
were running the ADSM server on an UNIX platform (Sun or HP) the results could
be different.

> So my questions are:
>
> 1) is level zero backups on Unix so hard to initiate that they're right in 
> say>    ing that's its very little effort to include all the data (system & 
> user)??
>     (I argued that they need only backup the OS and ADSM programs & ADSM
>     could provide the rest in a disaster recovery scenario.)
>
You can fit 5Gb on exabyte tape, if you are doing one partition of the
machine why not do all of it at the same time its no more effort.

> 2) are they going about this in a wrong way by doing level zero backups
>    and therefore precluding my arguments?  (i.e. is there an easier way
>    of creating a 'bootstrap' backup that could launch them into running ADSM
>    for a disaster recovery scenario?)
>
Not easily on Sun or Ultrix. The disk partitions are often custom sizes
and the disaster recovery would disk require partitioning.

> 3) what arguments can be made for ADSM even with a level zero backup?
>
ADSM is more use as a daily unattended backup I still retain a level 0 dump
of all systems for disaster recovery. Easy restore and unattended backup are
the main selling points.

>    1) good redundancy in case their level zero tapes are unreadable (possible)
>
Network problems are more likely. If you have to get a basic system back for
ADSM to work then restoring everything on the tape or reinstalling from CD-ROM
is not that much more effort.

>    2) better / more up-to-date backups if ADSM is run twice daily compared
>       to level zero backups run every X (where X is every day/week/month)
>
Given a level 0 dump the only reason.

>    3) ease of use for individual users on the server (there maybe no users)
>
Agreed.

>    4) ???????? more ???????
>
> thanks in advance for your suggestions!
> cheers  !!     ...   joe.f.
>
and

>   4) zero-level is nice for restoring a system, but not application data;
>       making up-to-date backups easy to collect makes it *useful*
>
Convenience is the major selling point, most people are lazy. Saying "so you
can change a tape each day or we can do some backups for you", works better
than "dont do tape backups".

>    5) ADSM facilitates off-site backup for disaster situations; the backup
>       media is NOT going to be stored 5 feet from the Sun server it came from.
>
Is your system completely isolated from the systems it backs up ? Different
building, different town.... different country.

>    6) ADSM reduces labor costs, without requiring acquisition of jukebox
>       or optical devices.
>
We have a server with tape library and optical jukebox, you mean your server
has everything on hard disk !

>    7) ADSM permits enterprise-wide audit and management oversight to ensure
>       implementation of backup policies.

Departmental purchasing policies put paid to that a long time ago. so the
thought is  "we buy the systems with our budget, what's it got to do with you
anyway".

Just another hint try understanding what their problems (and prejudices) are
don't just assume you have a solution.

Roy Jaques