Sounds like a great idea to me.  I don't use collocation because I
     don't want to manage multiple storage pools but if I could do it by
     node I would certainly be interested.
     james.sporer AT doit.wisc DOT edu



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Suggestion for ADSM enhancement to reduce the need for
Author:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>  at IPNET
Date:    8/26/98 10:20 AM


This idea of "collocation groups" matchs a requirement I submitted 18 months
ago at a SHARE conference.  So IBM has heard all this before, but they
responded to my req as a suggestion.  Maybe they will think more about it
now?

I backup mostly end user desktop machines but some servers too. The amount
of data that each user has
is much less than the capacity of a 3590.  I would like to make a group of 3
or 4 nodes to be treated as 1 node when migration and reclaim are done. This
would exploit the capacity of 3590 better and reduce the tape mounts during
migration.  It would have minimal if any impact during the restore of a
grouped node.

IBM's suggestion is to run with a limited number of tapes.  This will cause
nodes to "double up" on a tape, but it wouldn't reduce the tape mounts and
it could double up a small client node with a server.  The servers deserve
to be on their on exclusive tapes.

Unfortunately I can't locate the text of the requirement to include here.


>Doug's method works for the current design; but I would rather not have to
>manage disk pools.  I would prefer a new feature that would allow grouping
>nodes into a "collocation group".  All nodes in a "collocation group" would
>be written to the same tape.  A node which is not a member of a
>"collocation group" would be written to its own set of tapes (as its done
>today). Naturally, multiple "collocation groups" could be defined.  Any
>thoughts?

>On Mon, 24 Aug 1998   Doug Thorneycroft <dthorneycroft AT lacsd DOT org> wrote:

>> One alternative to co-location. . .

>> We are using several non co-located storage pools and one co-located
>> pool. We limit the number of nodes in each non co-located pool to
>> reach a good balance between The number of tape mounts required for
>> migration, and the number of mounts required for the restore of a
>> single node.
>> Only our largest and busiest nodes are co-located.

>[... cut ...]


--
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge, Ma.
bcolwell AT draper DOT com
-----------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================