Good questions:
We are currently working on a project that is using ProtectTIER. The
ProtectTIER 7650G is does dedup. It looks like a TS3500 w LTO drive. We will
be getting another 7650G at a second data center. The idea is to to
cross-replicate between data centers.
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
robert_clark
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:34 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file
systems for pirmary pool
The elephants in the room:
It is tempting, once DD gets in the door, to move all database backups (the
typical TDP/RMAN and SQLLiteSpeed stuff) to go directly to DD. (No TSM
involved, so save money on licenses?)
Combinations that have more advanced communications with the back end storage
(OST / Boost / Avarmar+DD) may be able to get hints about what is already
stored on the dedupe device? Seems unlikey that TSM will gain any features like
this any time soon. (NDMP? VTL? these feature are pretty dated.)
Is TSM 6 not losing data via dedupe this week?
How problematic is "many TB of data on fileclass on file systems" when it
comes time to do a fsck after a system crash?
[RC]
On Sep 27, 2011, at 03:06 PM, "Prather, Wanda" <wPrather AT ICFI DOT COM> wrote:
Actually I have more customers using Data Domains without the VTL license than
with it.
With a Windows TSM server, you can just write to it via TCP/IP using a CIFS
share(NFS mount with an AIX TSM server).
If you have sufficient TCP/IP bandwidth for your load, no fibre connections
needed.
>From the TSM point of view, you configure it as a file pool.
You get the benefits of dedup and (if you have a 2nd one at your DR site)
replication.
Neither good or bad, just different.
Very simple setup, works great if it meets your throughput requirements.
W
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Daniel Sparrman
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:49 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems
for pirmary pool
The fact you actually need to pay a "VTL license" is just plain scary.
When u bought it, did they think you're gonna use it as a fileserver? I'm not
to specialized into Data Domain, but arent they marketed as backup hardware? So
you get a disk, but if you want to use it for something else than that, you
need to pay a license?
Sorry for sounding bitter, but I've always heard people referring to Data
Domain as a VTL.
Daniel Sparrman
Exist i Stockholm AB
Växel: 08-754 98 00
Fax: 08-754 97 30
daniel.sparrman AT exist DOT se
http://www.existgruppen.se
Posthusgatan 1 761 30 NORRTÄLJE
-----"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> skrev: -----
Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Från: "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>
Sänt av: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Datum: 09/27/2011 18:55
Ärende: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool
On 09/27/2011 12:02 PM, Rick Adamson wrote:
> The bigger question I have is since the file based storage is
> native to TSM why exactly is using a file based storage > not supported?
Not supported by what?
If you've got a DD, then the simplest way to connect it to TSM is via files.
Some backup apps require something that looks like a library, in which case
you'd be buying the VTL license.
FWIW, if you're already in DD space, you're paying a pretty penny. The VTL
license isn't chicken feed, I agree, but it's not a major component of the
total cost.
- Allen S. Rout
|
