> And IBM told me that is how a No Query Restore works with -IFN.     EVERY
> tape is mounted, EVERY FILE MOVED to the client    OVER THE NETWORK where
> it is then compared.   And only replaced if the file is newer.
> They will submit a design change request for me.

I think it's the neglect that really bothers me about ADSM.  ADSM is up to
version 3 now, and an astoundingly bad design element like this is still in
it.  Developers knew it, and IBM management *should* have known it.  And no
advisory appears in the Backup-Archive manual to tell of the impact that this
option will have...in particular making it infeasible for use with today's
very large filespaces.  This situation also speaks to the lack of vendor
testing of the product, which has had to become so topical on the List.  If I
were producing a high-profile product within a very competitive market, I'd be
doing all kinds of testing on the development output side to check for
problems; and this kind of problem would glaringly evidence itself.

I think we're all extremely disappointed in IBM management, which has both
failed to properly oversee the ADSM product, and is obviously directing
development to add marketing-oriented features to appeal to enterprise
executives while core product functionality suffers like this.  The needs of
the people who contend with the product on a daily basis are too often
ignored: they are in the trenches struggling to make the product work to
support their enterprises, contending with design deficiencies and all the
defects of version 3.

We need someone in ADSM product management to finally turn this situation
around, and make ADSM all that it should be.  You have a lot of customers out
there who depend upon the product and very much want it to live up to its
marketing.  There are far too many needless problems which are dragging the
product down, hurting its usability and reputation.  ADSM is supposed to
enhance the functionality of customer sites, not be an impeding time-sink as
it is to too many sites.

What specifically do customers see that needs to be done?
 - Institute design reviews!
 - Impose testing regimens, including regression testing, performance
   analysis, and functionality tests...for new releases, PTF levels, and
   individual fixes.
 - Enforce documentation thoroughness:  Assure that usage information is
   thorough and matches product features; require that message descriptions
   actually explain causes, and are not just trite rephrasings of the message
   text; put usage info into the basic manual set rather than in detached
   redbooks (leaving redbooks for truly advanced topics that require more
   elaborate exploration).  Require that documentation writers read ADSM-L for
   feedback on what's missing.
 - Conduct quality reviews:  Have staffers actually try installing and using
   the product according to given instructions to assure that it's complete
   and works as it should.
 - Be institutionally receptive to customer feedback:  Adopt a more modern
   input methodology - get away from the dismissive approach of telling
   customers to submit change requests through their local representatives,
   which customers perceive as an ineffectual blow-off.  Give customers some
   sense that the IBM infrastructure is listening and will actually act upon
   thoughtful submissions.
 - Provide developers and testing groups with all the resources they need to
   efficiently turn out a quality product.  (I say this because I've seen how
   inadequate and outdated those resources can be.)

It's actually easy to make a company succeed: you *care*.  And so much of that
comes from the top down.  IBM management ultimately has to be genuinely
interested in seeing this product succeed.  Certainly IBM management should be
at least as interested and enthusiastic about it as is its customer base!

       Richard Sims, Boston University OIT