ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] copypool-only TSM server on a VM

2011-02-02 14:37:09
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] copypool-only TSM server on a VM
From: "Huebner,Andy,FORT WORTH,IT" <Andy.Huebner AT ALCONLABS DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:32:24 -0600
I am not sure I understand.
You want to build virtual TSM servers with no storage pools to funnel the data 
to a physical TSM with storage pools to reduce the workload on the physical 
server?  What work are you trying to reduce since the physical server will 
still have the data on its network connection and on its storage devices.

Consider these random thoughts:
iSCSI
Library Managers are not evil
K.I.S.S.
Backups are for fun, restores are serious
LPAR > guest


Andy Huebner


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Keith Arbogast
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:01 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] copypool-only TSM server on a VM

I have been asked to evaluate the use of copypool-only TSM servers built on 
virtual machines.

Virtual machines on ESX can't do I/O to tape devices, but the source server for 
a server-to-server copy pool does not need to do I/O to tape devices. It sends 
its files to the target TSM server which does the tape I/O.  So, potentially, 
several TSM servers built on virtual machines could send virtual volumes to one 
physical TSM server target with tape I/O capability. Primary pools would be 
defined on the source servers, but they would be marked unavailable permanently.

Each TSM server on a virtual machine would have two copy pools: one on-site and 
the other off-site; instead of an on-site primary pool and an off-site copy 
pool.

The reason for doing this would be; to divide the backup load into smaller 
chunks across more TSM servers, to avoid buying more physical servers, and to 
share tape drives without using a Library Manager.

A detriment of this setup would be that reclamation of the copypools would be 
degraded with no primary tape pools to read from.

Are there other obvious or subtle problems with this idea? Or, is it 
brilliant?...

Which copypool would restore files come from? How would that be managed?

Our TSM license is based on TB in primary storage, so extra licenses are not a 
factor.

Please, don't be shy.

Thank you,
Keith Arbogast
Indiana University

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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>