Well, it seems to me that FDR/Upstream has the same functionality and
from our perspective has the experience in the mainframe centralized
backup arena.  I'm not saying which is a better product, but it seems to
me that ADSM and Upstream are playing technology leapfrog,,,,,,,,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cindy Cannam [SMTP:CCannam AT GENAM DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 11:09 AM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
>
> To all:
>
> They were using HARBOR here at this company before I arrived, but
> there had
> never been a move to upgrade or use the system much beyond its
> original
> installation features. When I came on board, I reviewed HARBOR against
> a
> number of other backup/archive software systems including ADSM, and
> simply
> found that HARBOR was (1) slow to respond to changing technology on
> the few
> platforms it supported; and (2) that concerns from other users were
> mounting about its ability to gracefully handle large transfers of
> data
> (either from a backup or a restore) in any scenario. This was a little
> unnerving with a higher emphasis on disaster recovery looming over
> most
> companies.
>
> IMHO: I believe HARBOR may be a good product for smaller organizations
> that
> are not expecting large amounts of storage growth or mad switches in
> preferred platforms over an non-specific period of time.
>
> I will admit the first version of ADSM was cumbersome and tedious, and
> other products were serious contenders for the same markets during
> that
> first year or so. But IBM has taken on a gigantic task in keeping
> ahead of
> the storage management crowd with updates to ADSM, and responding to
> users'
> requirements (and demands in many cases). Support for such a large
> number
> of platforms in both the client and server arenas is a major plus ---
> there
> were no other products that came close to the numbers of platforms
> (and
> versions) supported. And upgrades really do provide the fixes and
> features
> that create a better storage management environment.
>
> The main thing ADSM brought to the table was experience: none of the
> other
> products could promise to have such a broad band of knowledge involved
> in
> the development and support of a multi-function, multi-platform
> software
> solution for an increasingly more visible component of any business.
> At
> least IBM had the forethought to get on the right horse BEFORE the
> race
> this time....
>
> C.L.Cannam
> Storage Management
> GENAM/St. Louis, MO/USA
>
>
>
>
> "Smith, Richard" <smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM> on 02/11/98 08:02:41 AM
>
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:    (bcc: Cindy Cannam)
> Subject:  Re: ADSM alternatives
>
>
>
>
>         Just a note... We are using Harbor for one of our NT servers
> and
> about
> 10 Novell servers, and plan to replace it with ADSM.
> Rick Smith
> Maritz, Inc.
> Storage & Security Administration
> smithrr AT maritz DOT com
> (314) 827-1584
> > ----------
> > From:         Hauenstein Peter[SMTP:Peter.Hauenstein AT AID.ZH DOT CH]
> > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 3:17 AM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> >
> > If you are looking for another solution, have a look at Harbor from
> > Interlink.
> > web: http:/www.interlink.com
> >
> > Peter
> >