TSM and NBU are too different to say you need this or that feature in 
NBU, IMHO.

If you wish to do a *lot* of reclamation, TSM can give you better 
utilization ... but if you can't afford a lot, utilization under TSM can 
be poor.

TSM's real differences comes from backing up any one file exactly once, 
having disk storage pools (for over a decade) that work very well, and 
having everything available to a rudimentary SQL (please excuse that I 
haven't used TSM in 3 years).

Synthetic backups are sort of the reclamation of NBU ... and I wish 
Symantec would put some teeth into it.  (I have a number of servers that 
I *never* want to do a full backup).

cheers, wayne
> Coming from a mainframe background, I'd have to say that TSM-style 
> "reclamation", or DFHSM-style "recycle", is something that would be 
> very helpful in NetBackup. Compared to TSM and DFHSM, NBU is very 
> inefficient in it's tape usage, as David points out below. Of course, 
> this reclamation does incur a fair processing overhead.