This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C45070.911B6F30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MessageHi again!
I forgot to ask about veritas licensing... We are considering to but a =
DL300, but our veritas sales rep. say that veritas hasent licensed this =
product yet, hopefuly they will do this during june, he say.
However he also said that we probably we have to buy 1 tape drive =
license for every virtual drive we create. This is kind a bad i think =
because you lose some of the flexibility with the DL. Also it can be =
quite expencive if we create many drives. I still consider the DL to be =
something we need, and it is much sheaper than real drives.
Also, how will veritas control how many drives one have? Maybe the =
license the entire DL cabinett and it will cost us much money.
Who have you licensed your DL? Who do you think veritas will do this =
licensing?
Best Regards
Hampus Lind
----- Original Message -----=20
From: McDonald_Brian AT emc DOT com=20
To: Ebon_Nash AT compuware DOT com ; joe AT joe DOT net ; paul.esson AT
redstor DOT com ; =
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu=20
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Disk Based Backup
The newer disk libraries based on SATA are very fast. The only tape =
devices I have tested that even came close to them in performance =
using Netbackup
is the IBM FC LTO Gen 2. Then, with multistreams or with a =
multistream/mulitplexed backup the difference again widens edge: the =
disk library solution.
I compared the EMC DL against various TLUs with SCSI DLT 7000, =
SDLT 220N, SDLT320, LTO gen 1, LTO gen 2 and FC LTO gen 1 and gen 2.=20
Pushed to its maximum aggregate performance the DL will do 450 MB/s. =
If there is any single tape library that can do that, I would have to =
see it.
Thats not specmanship, its actual measured performance.=20
The new DLs in many cases save you money too by
- eliminating the SSO Option in some cases and still be able to share =
this device with multiple hosts
- Can also replicate the virtual tapes to physical tapes if you're =
obligated to do that. The end result is you need half the physical tapes =
you used to
need.
- If you are trucking off line copies to a secured site, you can =
eliminate the truck middleman by putting the physical tape device there =
and configuring it the=20
DL over a DWDM link. Simply by telling NBU to eject (in this case =
virtual) tape from the virtual library will automatically start the copy =
to physical tape at=20
the secured site. . I did this over a 200km DWDM link to a STK L180 =
with FC 994B tape drives. Its tough to get double digit IO performance
of anything over a single DWDM link and I was doing 17 MB/s with one =
stream.=20
But the real beauty of the DL is the benefit of RAID. That increases =
the reliability of the on site backup set. When a tape drive fails, you =
lose a storage device
and some aggregate performance of the TLU until the drive is replaced. =
If a disk in the DL fails, no loss of performance or storage unit.
A tape device can run into a "bad tape experience" now and then =
doing a backup. You won't have that with a DL. Of course you could have =
that with
the physical TLU device the DL might optionally have as the archiving =
device, but thats not going to interfere with your backup window. The DL =
to physical tape
copy process is "out of band" in respects to the Netbackup backup =
servers.=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu =
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Nash, Ebon
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:26 PM
To: 'Johnny Oestergaard'; Paul Esson; =
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Disk Based Backup
We moved from disk storage units to disk staging storage units and =
took a huge performance hit. The overhead required for disk staging, =
and apparent filesystem fragmentation due to 100% utilized filesystems, =
forced us to revert back to disk storage units. If performance is an =
issue, be wary of disk staging storage units.
Ebon Nash
Compuware Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu =
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]On Behalf Of Johnny =
Oestergaard
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:41 PM
To: Paul Esson; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Disk Based Backup
Regarding speed on disk compared to tape I would say that =
high-speed tapedrives are much faster then disk except for the time it =
takes to load and unload the tape. When the tape is at the right =
position tapes are fast. Our 9940B should be able to take around 70 MB/s =
if we could feen them that fast. I would like to see a SATA disk system =
that could take the same load as just 4 of the 9940B drives.
In an installation using diskstaging I see one great thing that I =
think we will use and that is most of all to stage small backups and =
slow backups to disk and then let NBU stage them to tape. With a little =
luck we should be able to bring our multiplexing down and thereby speed =
tapeduplication up.
What makes tapeduplication slow is most of all on duplexed tapes. =
We run some tests on duplication speed on backups that where not =
duplexed some years ago, and as I remember it we did this at almost the =
max speed of the drives (We did 3 tests on 9940A drives)
I would use vault to make my off-site copies
/johnny
At 17:24 09-06-2004 +0100, Paul Esson wrote:
Folks,
=20
I am currently deliberating over disk based backup options and =
would welcome comments from those with first hand experience. =20
=20
Specifically, I am trying to way up the pros and cons of using a =
Virtual Tape Library versus sharing storage out to media servers from =
say a SATA disk array. The latter looks attractive particularly since =
the introduction in v5.0 of Disk Staging Storage Units (DSSUs). Is =
anyone using DSSUs currently? With VTL there seems to be the cost issue =
of licensing drives as in a regular library.
=20
What I would like to do is write all backups initially to disk =
but then stage the full backups to tape. I had hoped to create two tape =
copies one to remain onsite (in a tape library) and the other to go =
offsite. However, I am somewhat confused as to the NetBackup =
functionality required to achieve this? If I use the DSSU the data =
appears to be migrated to tape as part of the policy anyway, but how =
would I achieve my twin copies on tape, ideally with different retention =
levels? Do I actually require to use inline copy or even Vault =
(duplication) to achieve my end? The concern I have with inline copy is =
that the quicker write to disk will be negated by having to write to =
tape at the same time and before the job completes. As for Vault I =
don't know the product at all but believe it is licensed by drive (How =
does this work if your source is a disk storage unit?) and that could =
prove costly. I have also read on this list adverse comments about =
duplication speeds, although I would be writing from disk to tape.
=20
All comments on any of these items very welcome.
=20
Regards,
Paul Esson
Senior Support Engineer
Redstor Limited
Direct: +44 (0) 1224 595381
Mobile: +44 (0) 7766 906514
E-Mail: paul.esson AT redstor DOT com
Web: www.redstor.com
REDSTOR LIMITED
Torridon House
73-75 Regent Quay
Aberdeen
UK
AB11 5AR
Disclaimer:
The information included in this e-mail is of a confidential =
nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the =
intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is =
prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the =
addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise is not intended to waive =
privilege or confidentiality.<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
=20
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee =
only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are =
the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use =
it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please =
notify us immediately and then destroy it.=20
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C45070.911B6F30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi again!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I forgot to ask about veritas =
licensing... We are=20
considering to but a DL300, but our veritas sales rep. say that veritas =
hasent=20
licensed this product yet, hopefuly they will do this during june, he=20
say.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>However he also said that we probably =
we have to=20
buy 1 tape drive license for every virtual drive we create. This is kind =
a bad i=20
think because you lose some of the flexibility with the DL. Also it can =
be quite=20
expencive if we create many drives. I still consider the DL to be =
something we=20
need, and it is much sheaper than real drives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Also, how will veritas control how many =
drives one=20
have? Maybe the license the entire DL cabinett and it will cost us much=20
money.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Who have you licensed your DL? Who do =
you think=20
veritas will do this licensing?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hampus Lind</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DMcDonald_Brian AT emc DOT com=20
href=3D"mailto:McDonald_Brian AT emc DOT com">McDonald_Brian AT emc DOT
com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3DEbon_Nash AT compuware DOT com=20
href=3D"mailto:Ebon_Nash AT compuware DOT com">Ebon_Nash AT compuware DOT
com</A> ; =
<A=20
title=3Djoe AT joe DOT net href=3D"mailto:joe AT joe DOT net">joe AT joe DOT
net</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dpaul.esson AT redstor DOT com=20
href=3D"mailto:paul.esson AT redstor DOT com">paul.esson AT redstor DOT
com</A> ; <A =
title=3Dveritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu=20
=
href=3D"mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu">veritas-bu AT mailman
DOT eng.=
auburn.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 09, 2004 =
9:34=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Veritas-bu] Disk =
Based=20
Backup</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> The newer disk libraries based on SATA are very =
fast. The=20
only tape devices I have tested that even came close to =
them in=20
performance using Netbackup</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>is=20
the </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>IBM FC LTO Gen 2. Then, with multistreams or =
with a=20
multistream/mulitplexed backup the difference again widens edge: the =
disk=20
library solution.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> I compared the EMC DL against various TLUs =
with SCSI DLT 7000, SDLT 220N, SDLT320, LTO gen 1, LTO gen 2 and =
FC LTO=20
gen 1 and gen 2. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Pushed to its maximum =
aggregate performance the DL=20
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>will do 450 MB/s. If there is any single tape library that =
can do that,=20
I would have to see it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Thats not specmanship, its actual measured performance.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> The new DLs in many cases save you money too=20
by</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> - eliminating the SSO Option in some cases and =
still be able=20
to share this device with multiple hosts</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>- Can also replicate the virtual tapes to =
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>physical tapes=20
if you're obligated to do that. The end result is you need half the =
physical=20
tapes you used to</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>need.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>- If=20
you are trucking off line copies to a secured site, you can eliminate =
the=20
truck middleman by putting the physical tape device there and =
configuring=20
it the </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>DL=20
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>over a DWDM link. Simply by telling NBU to eject (in this =
case virtual)=20
tape from the virtual library will automatically start the copy =
to=20
physical tape at </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>the=20
secured site. . I did this over a 200km DWDM link to a STK L180 =
with FC=20
994B tape drives. Its tough to get double digit IO=20
performance</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>of=20
anything over a single DWDM link and I was doing</FONT> <FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>17 MB/s with one stream. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004></SPAN><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> But the real beauty of the DL is the benefit of =
RAID.=20
That increases the reliability of the on site backup set. When a =
tape=20
drive fails, you lose a storage device</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>and=20
some </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>aggregate performance of the TLU until the =
drive is=20
replaced. If a disk in the DL fails, no loss of performance or storage =
unit.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> A tape device can run into a "bad tape experience" now =
and then=20
doing a backup. You won't have that with a DL. Of course you could =
have that=20
with</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>the=20
physical TLU device the DL might optionally have as the archiving =
device,=20
but thats not going to interfere with your backup window. The DL to =
physical=20
tape</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>copy=20
process is "out of band" in respects to the Netbackup backup =
servers.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004></SPAN><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004></SPAN><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT =
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D020152118-09062004><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D020152118-09062004> </SPAN>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu=20
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] <B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Nash,=20
Ebon<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:26 PM<BR><B>To:</B> =
'Johnny=20
Oestergaard'; Paul Esson; =
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
RE: [Veritas-bu] Disk Based Backup<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=3D804032317-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>We=20
moved from disk storage units to disk staging storage units and took =
a huge=20
performance hit. The overhead required for disk staging, and =
apparent=20
filesystem fragmentation due to 100% utilized filesystems, forced us =
to=20
revert back to disk storage units. If performance is an issue, =
be wary=20
of disk staging storage units.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D804032317-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D804032317-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D804032317-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Ebon Nash</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D804032317-09062004><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Compuware Corp.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu=20
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]<B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Johnny=20
Oestergaard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:41=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Paul Esson;=20
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: =
[Veritas-bu] Disk=20
Based Backup<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Regarding speed on disk compared =
to tape=20
I would say that high-speed tapedrives are much faster then disk =
except=20
for the time it takes to load and unload the tape. When the tape =
is at the=20
right position tapes are fast. Our 9940B should be able to take =
around 70=20
MB/s if we could feen them that fast. I would like to see a SATA =
disk=20
system that could take the same load as just 4 of the 9940B =
drives.<BR>In=20
an installation using diskstaging I see one great thing that I =
think we=20
will use and that is most of all to stage small backups and slow =
backups=20
to disk and then let NBU stage them to tape. With a little luck we =
should=20
be able to bring our multiplexing down and thereby speed =
tapeduplication=20
up.<BR><BR>What makes tapeduplication slow is most of all on =
duplexed=20
tapes. We run some tests on duplication speed on backups that =
where not=20
duplexed some years ago, and as I remember it we did this at =
almost the=20
max speed of the drives (We did 3 tests on 9940A drives)<BR><BR>I =
would=20
use vault to make my off-site copies<BR><BR>/johnny<BR><BR>At =
17:24=20
09-06-2004 +0100, Paul Esson wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite"><FONT =
face=3Dverdana=20
size=3D2>Folks,</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT face=3Dverdana =
size=3D2>I am=20
currently deliberating over disk based backup options and would =
welcome=20
comments from those with first hand experience. =20
</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT face=3Dverdana size=3D2>Specifically, =
I am trying=20
to way up the pros and cons of using a Virtual Tape Library =
versus=20
sharing storage out to media servers from say a SATA disk =
array. =20
The latter looks attractive particularly since the introduction =
in v5.0=20
of Disk Staging Storage Units (DSSUs). Is anyone using =
DSSUs=20
currently? With VTL there seems to be the cost issue of =
licensing=20
drives as in a regular library.</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT =
face=3Dverdana=20
size=3D2>What I would like to do is write all backups initially =
to disk=20
but then stage the full backups to tape. I had hoped to =
create two=20
tape copies one to remain onsite (in a tape library) and the =
other to go=20
offsite. However, I am somewhat confused as to the =
NetBackup=20
functionality required to achieve this? If I use the DSSU =
the data=20
appears to be migrated to tape as part of the policy anyway, but =
how=20
would I achieve my twin copies on tape, ideally with different =
retention=20
levels? Do I actually require to use inline copy or even =
Vault=20
(duplication) to achieve my end? The concern I have with =
inline=20
copy is that the quicker write to disk will be negated by having =
to=20
write to tape at the same time and before the job =
completes. As=20
for Vault I don't know the product at all but believe it is =
licensed by=20
drive (How does this work if your source is a disk storage =
unit?) and=20
that could prove costly. I have also read on this list =
adverse=20
comments about duplication speeds, although I would be writing =
from disk=20
to tape.</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT face=3Dverdana size=3D2>All =
comments on=20
any of these items very welcome.</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT =
face=3Dverdana=20
size=3D2>Regards,</FONT><BR><BR>Paul Esson<BR>Senior Support=20
Engineer<BR>Redstor=20
=
Limited<BR><BR>Direct: =20
+44 (0) 1224=20
=
595381<BR>Mobile: +44=20
(0) 7766=20
=
906514<BR>E-Mail: =20
=
paul.esson AT redstor DOT
com<BR>Web: &=
nbsp; =20
<A href=3D"http://www.redstor.com/"=20
eudora=3D"autourl">www.redstor.com</A><BR><BR>REDSTOR =
LIMITED<BR>Torridon=20
House<BR>73-75 Regent Quay<BR>Aberdeen<BR>UK<BR>AB11=20
5AR<BR><BR>Disclaimer:<BR>The information included in this =
e-mail is of=20
a confidential nature and is intended only for the =
addressee. If=20
you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or=20
distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. =
Disclosure=20
to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or =
otherwise=20
is not intended to waive privilege or =
confidentiality.<?xml:namespace=20
prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>
<P><B><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The contents of this e-mail are =
intended for=20
the named addressee only. It contains information that may be =
confidential.=20
Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you =
may not=20
copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in =
error=20
please notify us immediately and then destroy it.</FONT></B>=20
</P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C45070.911B6F30--
|
