>The organization that I work for deploys TSM quite
>sucessfully at its large main sites that serve some
>+4000 nodes. It is very apparent that TSM scales
>upwardly very well but I believe that scaling down is
>something else. MY question is this:How can similar
>services be delivered to sites where there are less
>than ten nodes, limited bandwidth, no system
>administrators and, most importantly, tiny budgets.

It's not realistic to have server systems of any kind at a site where there is
no technical administration: someone has to be knowledgeable about the systems
in order to minimally inspect them visually when there is a problem.  Clerical
people simply can't serve in that capacity.  Remote administration is a feasible
concept, but when hardware stops working, knowledgable eyes and experienced
hands must be at the site.  Such a responsibility might be contracted to an
outside company, which can feasibly attend to disparate physical sites.
Consider also that while unattended backup, by various means by products of
different scales, is not difficult, the backups are done because of the prospect
of the need for a restoral, which can involve a full-down computer, and that is
beyond the capabilities of clerical people to address: someone has to know what
to do, particularly where a collection of office computers will seldom be
uniform.

TSM is an enterprise product, intended for larger installations, which is to say
those where there are concentrated server facilities and network access.  As
Wanda suggests, backup by remote offices over a WAN is the method of choice
where TSM or like backup/restore product are involved.  Again, the backup is
easy, but restoral can be problematic.  Advanced planning is necessary to cover
all aspects of backup/restoral needs, which in turn is just a part of a
company's larger disaster recovery plan.

   Richard Sims, BU