Del,

Can you give us an rough idea of when or, more specifically, which
release of Spectrum Protect will no longer have virtual volume support?

Thanks,
Rick Saylor
Austin Community College

On 5/5/2017 5:41 AM, Del Hoobler wrote:

Hi Joerg,

The original purpose of virtual volumes was to simplify library use and
sharing in an age where that was difficult. There are significantly better
ways to solve the problems virtual volumes addressed with capabilities
such as fiber channel, shared libraries (library virtualization), and even
cloud. There are limitations on virtual volumes today and no current plans
to carry them forward.

Del

----------------------------------------------------


"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 05/04/2017
01:38:56 PM:

From: "J. Pohlmann" <jpohlmann AT SHAW DOT CA>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: 05/04/2017 01:39 PM
Subject: Re: Questions related to Container pools
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

Hi Del. W,r,t  Arnaud's q1 - perhaps you could convince your colleagues

to

also open container storage pools for virtual volume (that is the

archive

objects at the target server). I have some folks that like the idea of
backing up the database to VVs and also to produce the recovery plan

file on

VVs, That way, the DRM set spcifications automate the retention of DBB

and

RFP objects. Right now, they are using file device class volumes to

store

the archive objects that back the VVs.

Best regards,
Joerg Pohlmann

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of

Del

Hoobler
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:26
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Questions related to Container pools

Hi Arnaud,

For question #1 ... The reason the information is in the document is

because

Spectrum Protect restricts it. Stay tuned though, this could be allowed
soon.

For question #2 ... The only reason we recommend using 1 pool is

strictly

for the best possible deduplication rates AND the because container

pools

can grow much larger in size than its legacy counterparts. For legacy

pools,

the housekeeping that was required on the pool made it impossible to

grow a

pool too large (identify, reclamations, etc..). With container pools,

this

is no longer an issue, so we wanted to call that out. If you want to

split

container pools up, knowing the potential dedup rates fallout, that's
perfectly fine ... there are no other repercussions/issues. We have a

lot of

customers who have done this, primarily around the partitioning of data
sources (VE, TDPs, BA, etc.)

Thank you,

Del

=====================================


"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 05/03/2017
10:47:52 AM:

From: PAC Brion Arnaud <Arnaud.Brion AT PANALPINA DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: 05/03/2017 10:49 AM
Subject: Questions related to Container pools Sent by: "ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

Hi Team !

IBM recently released an interesting document summarizing best
practices with regards to container storage pools (https://
www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home?lang=en#!/wiki/Tivoli
Storage Manager/page/Container Pool Best Practices ) and some of the
information in it triggered two questions, which I would like some
Spectrum Protect insider (Del ?) or anyone having good knowledge of
this to answer ...

First question :  page 14 of the PDF document, chapter 1.4 , states
that it is not appropriate to use container pools in the case of NDMP
backups. What is the reason for it ? My understanding is that it is
possible to make use of NDMP without a tape based storage pool, thus I
don't get the point here ...

Second question : several references in the book are seeming to stress
that one should make use of ONE SINGLE container storage pool for a
whole TSM server (chapter 1.2.5.1.2 page 13, chapter 1.5.1 page 15). I
do understand that deduplication is made at storage pool level, and
that segregating backup data in several storage pools will weaken
deduplication rates, but are there some other reasons which are not
explained in the book, that would justify the use of only ONE
container pool (like more hammering on the TSM DB during backup times
if we make use of several storage pools, or others I did not think
about) We plan to build a new TSM environment which will be based only
on container storage pool(s ?), and I feel kind of uncomfortable to
send all of my data in the same bucket (less granularity for
reporting, auditing, protecting and so on ...).  Does someone have
arguments (pro or cons) or experience to share about this ?

Thanks in advance for your feedback !

Cheers.

Arnaud

****************************************************************************

**************************************************

Backup and Recovery Systems Administrator Panalpina Management Ltd.,
Basle, Switzerland, CIT Department Viadukstrasse 42, P.O. Box 4002
Basel/CH
Phone: +41 (61) 226 11 11, FAX: +41 (61) 226 17 01
Direct: +41 (61) 226 19 78
e-mail: arnaud.brion AT panalpina DOT com<mailto:arnaud.brion AT panalpina DOT 
com>
This electronic message transmission contains information from
Panalpina and is confidential or privileged. This information is
intended only for the person (s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use or
any other action based on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.

If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify
the sender by e-mail, telephone or fax at the numbers listed above.

Thank you.

****************************************************************************

**************************************************