What about using ADSM Servers in single client mode? For those platforms
that we have a server (NT, OS/2, AIX, Sun, HP...) you could attach your
tape drive to the system, run a server and the client on the same machine.
Should be pretty darn fast, and no network traffic. We even support a
shared memory protocol on some of the client/server combos. You could also
continue to backup that client to a main ADSM server, where the tapes could
be managed offsite. That way your not managing two totally different
backup systems.
Just a thought...
Cheers,
Brett
>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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Julie Phinney [SMTP:jphinney AT HUMANA DOT COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:09 AM
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: Re: ADSM alternatives
>We looked at Harbor and FDR upstream, initially (5 years ago?) (and also a
>slick looking product called EDM or EDSM or ESM from Legent) and I thought
>Harbor, at the time, looked slicker than ADSM. But that initial cost,
>compared to ADSM-MVS's monthly pricing scheme, is what pushed us to ADSM.
>ADSM's not perfect, but it's too sufficient for us to have any big desire
>to re-do another roll out. We've recently implemented ArcServe for
>disaster recovery. We are doing both ADSM and ArcServe. ADSM during the
>week, ArcServe on the weekends. There is some concern that in the event of
>total disaster, any mainframe and network based recovery would be too slow,
>thus, the ArcServe addition.
>Julie
>
>
>
>DSanders AT INTERNAL.MASSMUTUAL DOT COM on 02/11/98 08:43:43 AM
>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
>
>
>
>Can I ask why (in general terms)??
>Also, I wanted to note that there wasn't a great response to my question
>about other ADSM replacement product analysis. Does this mean:
>*there aren't a lot of MVS server customers here on this forum?
>*that people jumped on ADSM initially and for various reasons, don't
>want to convert to another product?
>*that people want to keep quiet about the analysis they may have done?
>*that no other product does the job of ADSM?
>I appreciate the responses that I DID get and would appreciate all other
>comments?????
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Smith, Richard [SMTP:smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 9:03 AM
>> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>> 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
>> >
o------------------------------------------------------o
Brett Walker ADSM Development, IBM
walkerbl AT vnet.ibm DOT com tie 276-0265
o------------------------------------------------------o
"That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
--- Dennis Miller
|
