On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Robin Sharpe wrote:

> So collocation, in general will use more scratch tapes, and will have more
> tapes FILLING, than the same nodes in a non-collocated pool.  The payback
> of collocation is supposed to be faster restores due to not having to wade
> through other nodes' data.  However, in practice, after many months or
> years of backups, a restore will still have to go through its own inactive
> files to find the active ones to restore (or the correct inactive ones for
> a Point In Time restore).

In your experience is restore actually faster with collocation?
The strategy I am considering is to use TSM for mostly short term storage
for the bulk of my data and to use a different system for monthly backups.

Alternatively I am considering using Archives for my long term.
I had been away from TSM/ADSM for 2 years and just getting back to it.
Previously ADSM was not very good for Point in time or "snapshots".
It seems there are some new facilities, but have not got a chance
to check them yet... to busy just getting the existing setup into shape.
The previous admins left kind of a mess.


> Perhaps what we need is a way to "defragment" a node's already backed up
> data... resort it by active/inactive then by date... so all the active
> versions are contiguous.

Even if there was a way to move all data from a node to a storage pool,
this may be able to do the defragmentation.

I would also like to have a way to see where the data from a file space is
(i.e. storage pools, tapes).