ADSM-L

Re: ADSM alternatives

2015-10-04 18:01:07
Subject: Re: ADSM alternatives
From: Smith, Richard [SMTP:smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM]
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Richard

        We use Legato for our disaster recovery.  We tried to use ADSM,
but management didn't want to pay for it, as we would have to move large
volumes of tapes every day.

Rick Smith
Maritz, Inc.
Storage & Security Administration
smithrr AT maritz DOT com
(314) 827-1584

> ----------
> From:         Wendrock, Richard O[SMTP:wendrro AT TEXACO DOT COM]
> Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:41 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
>
> Cindy,
> Did you consider Lagato as an alternative? If not why?
> Regards,
> Richard
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Cindy Cannam[SMTP:CCannam AT GENAM DOT COM]
> > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:08 AM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> >
> > To all:
> >
> > They were using HARBOR here at this company before I arrived, but
> there
> > had
> > never been a move to upgrade or use the system much beyond its
> original
> > installation features. When I came on board, I reviewed HARBOR
> against a
> > number of other backup/archive software systems including ADSM, and
> simply
> > found that HARBOR was (1) slow to respond to changing technology on
> the
> > few
> > platforms it supported; and (2) that concerns from other users were
> > mounting about its ability to gracefully handle large transfers of
> data
> > (either from a backup or a restore) in any scenario. This was a
> little
> > unnerving with a higher emphasis on disaster recovery looming over
> most
> > companies.
> >
> > IMHO: I believe HARBOR may be a good product for smaller
> organizations
> > that
> > are not expecting large amounts of storage growth or mad switches in
> > preferred platforms over an non-specific period of time.
> >
> > I will admit the first version of ADSM was cumbersome and tedious,
> and
> > other products were serious contenders for the same markets during
> that
> > first year or so. But IBM has taken on a gigantic task in keeping
> ahead of
> > the storage management crowd with updates to ADSM, and responding to
> > users'
> > requirements (and demands in many cases). Support for such a large
> number
> > of platforms in both the client and server arenas is a major plus
> ---
> > there
> > were no other products that came close to the numbers of platforms
> (and
> > versions) supported. And upgrades really do provide the fixes and
> features
> > that create a better storage management environment.
> >
> > The main thing ADSM brought to the table was experience: none of the
> other
> > products could promise to have such a broad band of knowledge
> involved in
> > the development and support of a multi-function, multi-platform
> software
> > solution for an increasingly more visible component of any business.
> At
> > least IBM had the forethought to get on the right horse BEFORE the
> race
> > this time....
> >
> > C.L.Cannam
> > Storage Management
> > GENAM/St. Louis, MO/USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Smith, Richard" <smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM> on 02/11/98 08:02:41 AM
> >
> > Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> >
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > cc:    (bcc: Cindy Cannam)
> > Subject:  Re: ADSM alternatives
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         Just a note... We are using Harbor for one of our NT servers
> and
> > about
> > 10 Novell servers, and plan to replace it with ADSM.
> > Rick Smith
> > Maritz, Inc.
> > Storage & Security Administration
> > smithrr AT maritz DOT com
> > (314) 827-1584
> > > ----------
> > > From:         Hauenstein Peter[SMTP:Peter.Hauenstein AT AID.ZH DOT CH]
> > > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 3:17 AM
> > > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> > >
> > > If you are looking for another solution, have a look at Harbor
> from
> > > Interlink.
> > > web: http:/www.interlink.com
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> >
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>