Wanda - good to hear from you.
Thanks for the reply - sounds good. The other thing we are considering is
setting the migration pool for the old pool to go to the VSM as well, to
also help with the movement of the old data.
I will indeed go check out the adsm.org site.
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Prather, Wanda [mailto:Wanda.Prather AT jhuapl DOT edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:55 AM
To: 'ADSM: Dist Stor Manager'
Cc: 'jlawson AT THEHARTFORD DOT COM'
Subject: RE:
HI JERRY! Good to hear from you.
1) If you search the archives at search.adsm.org for "VTS", you will find
lots of discussions on the pros and cons of using virtual tape with TSM.
2) This is the coold part. What you do is
1) create your new device class
2) create a new sequential storage pool that uses the new devclass
3) update your diskpool so that "NEXTSTGPOOL" points to the new seq
pool
The next time migation occurs, you will be sending NEW data to the VTS.
The old data will be left sitting as is, on your cartridge devices.
You can leave that data alone until it naturally expires, or, as you have
time, do MOVE DATA on the old cartridges and point them to the new pool.
There is no rush to get that done - if a client tries to restore files, and
it has some in the old pool and some in the new, NO PROBLEM. TSM copes! It
just calls for its tape mounts on the old devices or the new devices, as
needed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawson, Jerry W (ETSD, IT) [mailto:jlawson AT THEHARTFORD DOT COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:54 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject:
Date: March 13, 2003 Time: 9:40 AM
From: Jerry Lawson
The Hartford Insurance Group
860 547-2960 jlawson AT thehartford DOT com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
It is interesting how in Data Processing, once you are associated with a
product, people keep asking you questions about it, even though you no
longer have a direct relationship. At least it's that way in my shop - I am
(and always will be) the ADSM/TSM guy. Not that it's a bad thing, but
sometimes the questions get a bit deep.
We are thinking about migrating our primary tape storage pool from cartridge
devices to an STK Virtual Tape device (This is a Big Iron based system). It
seems to me to be a doable thing - I'm a little concerned about reclamation
of the virtual volumes, but other than that, it's a positive move for us.
I have two questions, though...
1. Has anyone else done this, and what have your experiences
been?
2. The migration from the physical tape to the virtual tape
pool has caused us to think. We could just change the devclass unit type,
but then all of the current tapes would be incompatible - we would have the
OS trying to mount the tape on a disk device. Not good. A better approach
seems to be to create a new devclass, The question becomes where do we show
the relationship to the new devclass. Can we change the storage pool
definition to point to the new devclass, or do we have to create a new
Storage Pool as well, and then change the copy group definitions to point to
the new pool?
I've been away from this too long!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Jerry W. Lawson
Specialist, Infrastructure Support Center
Enterprise Technology Services Company
690 Asylum Ave., NP2-5
Hartford, CT 06115
(860) 547-2960
jlawson AT thehartford DOT com
This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of
addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying,
disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all
copies.
|
