I have tested the backupset option and DAMN its slow.  I figured I would be 
stuck with the archive option but I thought I would throw it out to the group.  
I didnt really have any intention of doing full+inc option.  I have daily 
incrementals with  no fulls and some archives for longer retention but I was 
hoping to increase my backup speed by using strictly incrementals.

R.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stapleton, Mark [mailto:mark.stapleton AT BERBEE DOT COM]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:52 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: inc mmc question


From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On 
Behalf Of CORP Rick Willmore
>I have many windows 2000 clients that I wish to backup using 
>an incremental backup and specifying a MMC that is different 
>than one specified in my dsm.opt using the inclu/exclu 
>options.  The idea is to have incrementals that are run daily 
>and a seperate set of incrementals that are run monthly 
>(different storage pool).  Anyone have any suggestions?  I am 
>trying to avoid using an archive due to database size and the 
>fact that the monthly incrementals are going to a tape pool 
>that will remain in my library.

You are trying to force TSM back into the unscalable, hard-to-manage,
full+incremental routine common with lesser backup packages. Trying to
do what you suggest will bump up your database size as fast (or faster)
than using an archive.

If you want a "snapshot" of the state of a server or two on a monthly
basis, consider using backupsets (which can come out of your library to
make room for more scratch tapes). If you want to do this with more than
a few servers, reconsider the archive idea. (And remember: you don't
need to archive every file on every machine. Find your data and archive
that only.)

--
Mark Stapleton (stapleton AT berbee DOT com)
Berbee Information Networks
Office 262.521.5627