Howdy Again,
Thanks Bill & Dan for some feed back. The requirement unfortunately is a fairly
lame one. The customer doesn't want to buy more tapes & feels that if the
offsite had a complete restore possibility they could wear the problem of
having to recall it from off site. The onsite pool could be used for just the
most recent restores. This would be a once off injection of additional tapes
that would stall off the purchase of more tapes... for a while. We've suggested
they examine the retention requirements but this is a bigger ask for the
customer.
Thanks & keep the feedback coming.

Dan Giles wrote:

> The question is pretty general at this point. My answer to this type of
> question is usually another question: "What are you trying to accomplish?",
> or "Why do you want to do that?". Usually, there is a smaller subset of
> files that would require a larger retention time than most other files.
> This is handled by archiving them.
>
> Perhaps if you gave us some more details we could help you out.
>
> Dan Giles
> Application Specialist
> Manulife Financial, Corporate
> Phone: 416-926-3549 Fax: 416-926-5234
>
> From: Wayne Gorton <wayne AT NETTRACK.COM DOT AU> on 99/02/22 01:34 AM GMT
>
> Please respond to wayne AT nettrack.com DOT au
>
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:    (bcc: ADSM)
> Subject:  We want a different number of copies onsite to offsite
>
> Howdy All,
> I would like to know if there is a way (even a sneaky way) to have a
> different number of copies onsite versus offsite? Currently we keep x
> number according to the copy group, then we perform a backup stg to a
> copy storage pool.
> There is nowhere in this model to allow for a different retention
> requirements?
> The only alternative is to not perform offsiting on the main stg pool,
> perform another backup (via another node bound to another mgm) to
> another stg pool and perform offsiting on this stgpool. Unfortunately
> this would mean 3 copies of data, one onsite (kept for a long time) and
> 2 copies of data being kept for a short time. This would cause the
> backup window to increase (not double, since we could run them at the
> same time, if the network can handle it).
>
> Is there a better way?
>
> --
> Name:               Wayne Gorton
> Role:          The Thinking Man
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Æs Clown
> Style: Imagination is more important than knowledge
> Work:         http://www.nettrack.com.au
> Mail:       mailto://wayne AT nettrack.com DOT au