You wrote:

> Surely, while this structure is important in some scebnarios, not everybody
> needs it.  But it has no drawbacks at all , at least for customers, because it
> can be used quite equally as today's structure


First, have you seen the changes that have been announced with Version 3 of
ADSM?  These include the ability to have distributed servers placed around your
company, and then have them back up to a central server.  One drawback of your
plan would be that a local backup would always have to go back to the central
server, and the restore would always have to come back from there.  With the
distributed scenario that ADSM is developing, I can have distributed servers
with storage pools there, and then move data back to the central server in a
more controlled manner.  When a restore is required, there is a high probability
that the file will still be on the distributed server, based on the premise that
most restores are from files that have just been backed up.  There are also ways
to manage this centrally, so that administrators do not have to be spread around
if this is not desired.  This whole scenario I think plays better when the
network is not as robust as one might like.

Just my $.02 - how much is that in Austria?

Jerry Lawson
jlawson AT thehartford DOT com


______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re: discuss a requirement with me: remote storage pool I/O a
Author:  INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
Date:    7/29/97 6:26 AM


Hi Lothar

> You mean having multiple servers sharing the same ADSM database disks?

No, just on the contrary.
I mean one ADSM Server with large database,
maybe one only for whole company or large departement.
Additional servers I spoke about are NOT ADSM servers,
they are simply  file and application servers.

The aim is to backup them all, and users workstations also,
on single ADSM Server, so that backup can be centralized
and possibly cheap.

Pulling all the backup data through an non-trivial network
partitioned inte more segmets may cause overload
on routers and in the network segment where ADSM server resides.

So my wish is to be able to backup that data near the location
where the data reside - in the same network segment
or even on the same file serever,
while keeping the advantage of single management point,
the ADSM server.

This would be in my eyes the task for I/O agents, which
would reside with advantage on file servers,
use locally attached tape robots, and exchange only
control data with ADSM server.

In simplest case, where I/O agent(s) would
reside on the same computer as ADSM server,
this would be be equal with today.s ADSM structure.

Surely, while this structure is important
in some scebnarios, not everybody needs it.
But it has no drawbacks at all , at least for customers,
because it can be used quite equally as today.s structure
 - see paragraph above.

It is also nothing revolutionary an it is not
my own great idea - I saw solution like this ,
if I can correctly remember, in HP.s Omniback.



You speak about SCSI Storage extenders for
keeping offsite backups online.
I know it, but depending on pfysical location it can be
expensive to build the line.
We here have network connection between our buildings over air,
I belive the costs for an extra SCSI air-to-air connection
would be too high. Air cable is forbidden, earth cabel.s
calculation was also a shock.

Have you any experience with
fire safes? With SCSI Extender I might keep
off-site data in safe on-site - but I am not sure how
safe such safes really are.

Juraj