ADSM-L

Re: Cost justification

1999-12-22 14:02:53
Subject: Re: Cost justification
From: "France, Don (Pace)" <don.france-eds AT EDS DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:02:53 -0600
If you ever get off the DLT's (they are notorious for media faults, there's
just too many friction points that cause debris to fly)... the 3494/3590
solution can be quite amazing, especially for large data base backups --- I
have a client using 4-drive silos for SAP backups (on two different HA
servers), he runs 3 threads of BackInt and gets (effectively) 80 GB/hr over
FDDI network (BackInt applies a light-compression scheme to the data, which
accounts for some of that speed)... every day, he books the 3 tape drives
"like a cheap motel", going straight to tape for each client's appropriate
backup window, even has alerts calling his pager if it misses its
performance numbers by more than 10% on any given day.


Don France

Technical Architect, P.A.C.E.
San Jose, CA
mailto:dfrance AT pacbell DOT net
PACE - http://www.pacepros.com
Bus-Ph:   (408) 257-3037



>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Keith Nelson [SMTP:knelson AT OPENMIC DOT COM]
>         Sent:   Monday, December 13, 1999 1:29 PM
>         To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>         Subject:        Re: Cost justification
>
>         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>
>         >
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>