==> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:40:41 -0700, Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT 
COM> said:


> [...I]nstead of having one onsite copy pool, why not just have two offsite
> copy pools. Again, assess the risks: what are the odds that you will
> actually need your copy storage pools in the event that a non-offsite
> recovery is needed? If the odds are very low, then consider just having your
> primary storage pools onsite, and if you need copy storage pool volumes,
> retrieve them from the offsite location if and when that becomes necessary.

I'd like to underscore this notion.  We're planning along precisely these
lines: Remote TSM server infrastructure, and "sufficiently" reliable network
between (1Gb, with expansion available up to 10Gb), with the remote copy pools
eventually being the only copy pools.

I was initially thinking that I would still maintain a local copy pool, but my
boss asked me, "If the network is good enough for DR, why isn't it good enough
for a dropped tape?". ...

Heh, felt dumb at that one.

I'll probably still retain an extra, onsite copy of the TSM DB backups, but
that's just normal paranoia. :)


> The command line is your friend.


Preach it, brother!


- Allen S. Rout