>I do not want to get into the situation where the 
>VTL has copied a virtual tape (VT00001) out to a physical tape
(VT00001) 
>and then NW recycles that tape in the VTL and uses it again.  NW has
now 
>lost track of the data that is on the physical VT00001.    

This is a red herring, IMHO.  In any integrated VTL worth its salt, this
is done with barcode matching:

1. You put physical tape LT00001 into the physical library (PTL)
2. VTL inventories PTL, finds LT00001
3. VTL adds LT00001 to inventory of VTL
4. NW backs up to LT00001
5. VTL sees LT00001 is full, copies it to real LT00001
5. NW ejects LT00001 from VTL, triggering eject of real LT00001

When you're done, NW thinks it copied to LT00001, and thinks it ejected
it, and that's what happened.  If you expire/recycle LT00001, there
won't be any difference from what happened if the tape was physical from
the start.

>If you can keep NW from ever recycling the virtual tapes so 
>that it never loses track of the data on the physical tapes
>then you'll be ok.

Again, this is no different than physical tape.  Why would you be
expiring a tape that has backups on it you want?

>Much easier (in my mind) to have NW stage the data from the virtual 
>tapes to a different physical tape.  Doing that means that you can have

>small virtual tapes and large physical tapes and not waste tape media 
>and according to recent discussion here

It's easier IF YOU CAN DO IT.  What might stop you?  Two things.

First, in the VTLs I've tested, there is sometimes a significant
performance difference between the copy speed of a
backup-software-managed copy and a VTL-managed copy.  (It has to do with
the makeup of the backups on the tape.  If there are a lot of files in
it, or if there are a lot of small incremental images, the copy can take
a lot longer if you do it via the backup software.)  I had one customer
that tested the alternative, and found it to be about 20 times faster in
his environment to have the VTL make the copies.

Second, it's not like it's easy to automate making clones in NW,
especially in large environments.  If you're good at scripting, you can
make it happen.  If you're not, this is still NW's Achilles' Heal.  BUT,
if you want to just back up to virtual tape, have those virtual tapes
become physical tapes, and then send those physical tapes offsite, you
can do that with no scripting -- if the VTL supports copying to physical
tape.

>...increase performance on the VTL 

Completely disagree based on what I've seen.

>...and decrease the risk of virtual tape contention.

Again, I don't see where this is an issue.






This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This 
message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER