Kelly,

        With Legato we are using an NT server and DLT tape drives, so
each tape has a capacity of 30 GB.  I know your next question is why
don't we do that with ADSM, and the answer is simple:  They brought ADSM
in before me.  We are considering the possibility of moving ADSM to an
NT server, and getting a DLT tape silo(autochanger).  Actually, I would
appreciate any thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of moving
from an MVS(soon to be OS/390) to an NT server.

Thanks,
Rick Smith
Maritz, Inc.
Storage & Security Administration
smithrr AT maritz DOT com
(314) 827-1584

> ----------
> From:         Kelly J. Lipp[SMTP:lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM]
> Sent:         Thursday, February 12, 1998 1:35 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
>
> How does the legato solution reduce the amount of tapes that would
> have to move?  I would think there would be more tapes to move rather
> than less since you must do periodic full backups with legato.
>
> Kelly
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Smith, Richard [SMTP:smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM]
> Sent:   Thursday, February 12, 1998 9:33 AM
> To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:        Re: ADSM alternatives
>
> Richard
>
>         We use Legato for our disaster recovery.  We tried to use
> ADSM,
> but management didn't want to pay for it, as we would have to move
> large
> volumes of tapes every day.
>
> Rick Smith
> Maritz, Inc.
> Storage & Security Administration
> smithrr AT maritz DOT com
> (314) 827-1584
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Wendrock, Richard O[SMTP:wendrro AT TEXACO DOT COM]
> > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:41 PM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> >
> > Cindy,
> > Did you consider Lagato as an alternative? If not why?
> > Regards,
> > Richard
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From:         Cindy Cannam[SMTP:CCannam AT GENAM DOT COM]
> > > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:08 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>