I am curious as to the problems you've been experiencing with the STK
library. If those could be addressed, would you consider an upgrade to
another STK library that would allow you to reuse the DLT drives, add 9840
drives and add capacity? You could also dynamically share the single library
and all the tape transports between the two ADSM servers rather than
managing two libraries in a direct-attach fashion.

Regards,

Keith

Keith Nelson                 Voice: 612.891.2867
Gresham Enterprise Storage   Fax:   612.891.4763
knelson AT openmic DOT com          Web:   http://www.gresham-computing.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Walter, Jeannine
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 11:33 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Cost justification
>
>
> OK, expert storage specialists,
> I'm in a bit of a bind here.  I have proposed a new storage
> solution for the
> IT department and I'm getting some flack on pricing.  Here's what I
> proposed:
> A new 3494 library with 4 3590 E tape drives
> A new IBM F50 ADSM server with TSM 3.7
> Cost is in the neighborhood of $350,000.
> Here's what we currently have:
> 1 ADSM server (an IBM S7A) that also runs Oracle and SAP
> StorageTek 9714 with 6 DLT 7000 drives
>
> The problem we currently have:
> 8 Unix servers
> 14 NT servers
> and a 400 GB Oracle/SAP database that gets backed up every night
> through SQL
> Backtrack to ADSM.
> Copy storage pools are created for file systems and SAP production data
> every day.
> 3 more Unix servers and at least 7 more NT servers will be added
> before Jan
> 15, 2000.
> As it stands right now, the 9714 is totally booked.  The box works all day
> and all night.  I've done everything I can to improve
> performance.  The best
> transfer rate I get is during the copy storage pools and at best it's 11GB
> an hour.  Eventually some of the 400 GB will be archived with
> HSM.  Finding
> time in the schedule to do this now is impossible.
>
> My proposal was to leave ADSM on the Oracle/SAP machine and
> connect the 3494
> to it.  This machine would then only backup SAP and create
> off-site storage
> pools for it.
> The new F50 would run only ADSM and it would be attached to the current
> 9714.  It would back up all of our file servers that the current
> SAP machine
> is doing and all new boxes that come on line.
>
> So is this a good idea?  Any other thoughts?  What would be better or more
> cost effective?
> Management is having trouble dealing with a none glamorous piece
> of hardware
> (that will only save their butts down the line).  They don't see that now
> though.  They only see this box that costs a fortune and doesn't carry any
> users.
>
> I, personally, want to stay just with an IBM solution because I am sick of
> the finger pointing that goes on now with our StorageTek unit.  StorageTek
> is constantly blaming IBM for the problems with the library and IBM is
> constantly telling me that the problem is with our StorageTek library.
>
> What other solutions are available?  I looked at StorageTek and
> IBM but not
> any other competitors.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Jeannine Walter
>
> Purina Mills, Inc.
> St. Louis, MO
> 314-768-4181
> Jeannine_Walter AT Purina-Mills DOT com <mailto:Jeannine_Walter AT 
> Purina-Mills DOT com>
>