We currently use an older VTL for the primary pools and you might find it hard 
to tell the difference between it and disks.  With the deduping VTLs out there 
the amount of storage needed will be reduced.  Pick carefully if you go the 
dedup route.  There are major speed differences depending on in-line vs. post 
processing.
Check the archives, there are plenty of threads on collocation and cartridge 
size when using a VTL.

We are using 4 year old FalconStor VTLs with about 300TB stored. 2 crashes, no 
other trouble. We do use slightly undersized disk pools to frontend the VTLs.

Andy Huebner

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Lee, Gary D.
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:55 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Questions about vtl useage

Tsm server v5.5.4 running on suse sles9 under zvm 5.3.

We are in need of expanding our storage.  Currently have an ibm 8100.  The disk 
is cheap enough, but the licensing for additional storage is outrageous.

We are thinking of switching to using a vtl for onsite storage and doing away 
with our onsite tape.

Are any folks out there using vtl, and if so what kinds and what has been your 
experience?

I currently have about 3 tB of onsite tape, looking to at least double that 
when we pick up the exchange 2007 environment.

Thanks for any information.


Gary Lee
Senior System Programmer
Ball State University
phone: 765-285-1310



This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized 
representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying 
or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments.

Thank you.