[Veritas-bu] Multiple SSO servers on 1 master server
2002-06-13 14:20:53
Subject: |
[Veritas-bu] Multiple SSO servers on 1 master server |
From: |
geoffh AT us.ibm DOT com (Geoffrey Hazel) |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:20:53 -0700 |
Why do you say LTO is a downgrade from 9840? From what I've been told, it
has faster data transfer and the tapes hold 5x as much data... what's the
downside?
Johnny
Oestergaard To: Geoffrey
Hazel/Seattle/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
<joe AT joe DOT net> cc:
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu]
Multiple SSO servers on 1 master server
06/13/02 10:59 AM
Not that I know anything about your problem, except that using more media
servers over SSO should not be a problem.
But what I was thinking when I read your email was:
Woww. Downgrading from 9840 to LTO that is something.
If I was you I would look into 9940 and not LTO. LTO is not even close to
STK9840, STK9940 and IBM 3590
/johnny
At 09:17 12-06-2002 -0700, Geoffrey Hazel wrote:
>We have an SSO setup with 4 media servers and 1 master/media server going
>to a STK Powderhorn with 20 9840 drives. We are going to be replacing
that
>Powderhorn with an L700 with LTO tapes and drives, also intended to be an
>SSO setkup.
>
>Now, when I defined 1 tape drive (shared) on my master server (only), we
>could no longer seee the 9840 drives in vmdareq! But as soon as the new
>drive was removed, voila, the 9840 drives reappeard.
>
>A Vertias consultant on site theorized that you could only have one SSO
>robot on a master server. So does anyone know if this is true or not?
If
>it is true, then we're going to need a plan for doing a hard cutover
>between the two robots, but if not, then we wonder why the drive
wierdness.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
|
|