Hi Kelly,  I don't know if an NT based system would be too slow, I guess
it'd be interesting to compare speeds, an ADSM-MVS solution versus ADSM-NT
solution.  I've been told to assume 100 or so 60GB servers that in the
event of a disaster would all have to be restored ASAP.  They are trying
right now to come up with a prioritizing scheme, and put time requirements
on them, but don't have it yet.  They believe the combination of the
mainframe and the network bandwidth would cause the recovery to take weeks
and weeks. I don't believe anyone's put much time into making an accurate
guess though.  When I suggested an ADSM-Unix solution, they said, we'd
still have that bandwidth problem, all those servers, fighting for
bandwidth.  They like the idea of locally attached tape drives and no
(possible) bandwidth problems.  (When I say bandwidth, in this case, we're
just talking about 100 local servers and not any of the remote servers, for
whom they dont want to consider ADSM)
Julie




lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM on 02/12/98 01:44:12 PM

Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU

To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:    (bcc: Julie Phinney/Green Bay/Humana)
Subject:  Re: ADSM alternatives




Do you think in the long run that an NT based ADSM server solution would
still be too slow for a viable DR solution?  What sorts of restore
requirements do you have?  Time and data size?
I assume the ArcServer solution has locally attached tapes on each system
(or a traveling tape) that would be used for both the backup and restore in
a disaster.
Kelly