Hi,
I saw last week that about half of the people visiting the TSM Symposium were
running V6, it's been stable for me so far.
The likeliness of an accidental SHA1 hash collision is relatively small even
compared to the total number of objects that a TSM server could possibly ever
store during its entire lifetime, insignificant. That being said, if you think
that your data is to valuable to even risk that, don't dedup.
--
Gr., Remco
Op 5 okt. 2011 om 19:24 heeft Shawn Drew <shawn.drew AT AMERICAS.BNPPARIBAS DOT
COM> het volgende geschreven:
> Along this line, we are still using TSM5.5 Some of the features
> mentioned previously require TSM6. TSM6 still feels risky to me. Maybe
> more risky than a hash collision.
> Just looking for a consensus, Do people think its mature enough now that
> it is as stable/reliable as TSM5 ?
>
> PS. Test restores are the only way to be sure your backups are good. You
> shouldn't just "trust" TSM.
>
> Regards,
> Shawn
> ________________________________________________
> Shawn Drew
>
>
>
>
>
> Internet
> rrhodes AT FIRSTENERGYCORP DOT COM
>
> Sent by: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> 10/05/2011 11:03 AM
> Please respond to
> ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
>
> To
> ADSM-L
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang:
> Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl
> versus file systems for pirmary pool
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> When TSM is duplicating your data (aka backing
>> up storage pools), there is no logical connection between your
>> primary storage pool and your copypool.
>
> Well . . .yes . .. no . . .
>
> All our eggs are in one basket no matter what. The logical connection
> between pri and copy pools is TSM itself. A logical corruption in TSM can
> take out both. Your data could be sitting there on tape and completely
> useless. Yes, that's why we have TSM db backups, but are they good? What
> if there is a TSM bug that renders all your backups bad - we don't find
> out until we need it!
>
> At some point you have to trust something. We all trust TSM. Yes, we do
> the db backup, create pri and copy pools, use reuse delay . . .everything
> to allow for problems . . . but we are still trusting that TSM workss as
> advertised. A really, really paranoid would run two complete
> separate/different backup systems - but who can afford that, or want to?
> But then, we do do that for our biggest SAP/ORacle systems. We use
> Oracle/RMAN-to-flasharea/RMAN-to-TDPO/TSM, but we also run EMC/clone
> backups off our DR sites R2's . . but also to TSM.
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
> agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
> and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
> the original message.
>
>
>
> This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for
> the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error,
> please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord
> with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial,
> is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the
> integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will)
> not therefore be liable for the message if modified. Please note that certain
> functions and services for BNP Paribas may be performed by BNP Paribas RCC,
> Inc.
|
