ADSM-L

Re: Acceptance (Was support ADSM)

1996-04-17 11:05:59
Subject: Re: Acceptance (Was support ADSM)
From: Ole Holm Nielsen <ohnielse AT FYSIK.DTU DOT DK>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:05:59 MET
My 2 cents' worth to this discussion of ADSM acceptance:

Mike Stewart <STEWAJM AT AUDUCADM.DUC.AUBURN DOT EDU> wrote:
> I've read with interest the discussion on knowledge needed to support ADSM.
(lines deleted)
> I've found here that the ADSM was well received by the
> PC-type platforms, but has made almost no headway into the
> Unix platforms.

I manage a UNIX network, mainly RS/6000 (SP2s, workstations), plus Suns
and HP's.  As a UNIX manager, I need to do backups, and our total disk
capacity is growing rapidly every year.  So I was naturally looking for
a centralized solution with a tape jukebox plus some network backup
software.

I chose to go with ADSM because we're getting good support from IBM
Denmark.  Having installed and configured ADSM (with the help of an IBM
guru), I can see why new ADSM customers will be frustrated:

Figuring out how to set up and configure the ADSM server is extremely
complex !  The documentation that's delivered with ADSM just doesn't
explain "HOW TO" in 25 simple steps.  This initial barrier is probably
sufficient to scare off many potential customers, whether or not they
use UNIX as the operating system on their backup server.  I would never
have made it without the IBM guru, given the present level of
documentation.  This is the first software that I have ever bought
(with 11 years of UNIX administration experience) which I couldn't get
to work by following the installation manual !

On the other hand, installing the ADSM client software is a breeze,
once you know about the dsm.sys and dsm.opt configuration files.  This
probably explains why "ADSM was well received by the PC-type
platforms", since they would represent ADSM client systems.

(lines deleted)
> 2. "Network bandwidth."

This is a legitimate concern for any network backup solution.
Backups at night via our Ethernet was our solution.

> 3. The server is running on an IBM machine.  Even worse, on
>    MVS, no less.  Our PC users don't seem to have the anti-MVS
>    sentiment the Unix users do.

As an ADSM client, you couldn't care less about the brand of the ADSM
server, I would claim.  I agree about "the anti-MVS sentiment [of] the
Unix users", since I used MVS 10 years ago:  I shall refuse to use an
MVS system ever again !.  However, I find it hard to believe that
Windows-users would enjoy MVS :-)

> 4. Any of our machine types where there is a "manager", either
>    Unix or a group of PC's, are reluctant to use ADSM.
>    Most of our Unix machines have "managers"/"system admin's".
> 5. Loss of control and prestige, or fear of same.
>
> I tend to believe all the reasons are really just
> rationalizations based on the last reason, fear of loss of
> control or prestige if a system manager begins depending
> upon a central server.

This observation is probably true in many environments.  A good
solution may be to put a local ADSM server on a UNIX (or whatever) box
in the workgroup.  This would retain local control, which may sometimes
be important to people.  It is not necessarily always true that
centralized solutions is "A Good Thing".

My 2 cents.

/Ole


% Ole Holm Nielsen
% UNI-C, Building 304
% Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
% E-mail: Ole.H.Nielsen AT uni-c DOT dk or Ole.H.Nielsen AT fysik.dtu DOT dk
% WWW URL: http://www.fysik.dtu.dk/persons/ohnielse.html
% Telephone: (+45) 35 87 89 65
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>