And one other advantage of VTL that I could see is they often (always)
provide compression.  Something we can only get on disk if we let the
client do the work.  So for half the disk you get twice the space.  Or
somesuch nonsense like that (unless you believe Overland, then you get
5x compression...) 


Kelly J. Lipp
VP Manufacturing & CTO
STORServer, Inc.
485-B Elkton Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719-266-8777
lipp AT storserver DOT com

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
David E Ehresman
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:32 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What
Vendors are you using for Virtual Tape?

The other advantage of a VTL over a disk subsystem when implementing an
all disk storagepool is that lan-free will work to a VTL but not to FILE
disk (without Sanergy).

David

>>> "Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM> 12/7/2006 7:27 AM
>>>
My 2 cents: There is on big advantage for using a VTL over a disk
subsystem: compression.
We are also using a EMC DL700 which uses in-the-box LTO compatible
compression.
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Roger Deschner
Sent: donderdag 7 december 2006 9:35
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Survey Question for Virtual Tape Users: What Vendors are
you using for Virtual Tape?

I keep hearing it said, that if you're going to buy a great big disk
array for TSM, that it works better if you let TSM know it has disks
(DEVCLASS=FILE), than if you lie and try to tell it they are virtual
tapes. Cheaper too, because you don't have that VTL layer in there.
Simpler to administer because it's all done in TSM. Easier to grow later
because you're not locked into a single vendor or technology - all the
disk box needs to do is support Unix filesystems under your OS. All that
lying just adds overhead.

We are dividing our workload, between large clients and small clients.
Basically, we're dividing them between those who could use collocation
on real tape effectively, and those who cannot.

The small clients are going to move to an all-disk solution. You could
call it virtual tape, except that TSM knows it's disks. Small clients
are the situation where backup to disk is effective, because collocation
is impractical so in a restore you're mostly waiting for the robot to
dance around in his cage mounting and unmounting tapes. This is a huge
waste of the robot's time, your time, and most importantly the client's
time. SATA drives aren't fast, but they're fast enough to speed up small
clients' large restores (e.g. an entire PC hard drive) by several orders
of magnitude.

The large clients are very much best on collocated real tape. I'd say
the test is this: If you have a group of clients that are exploiting
collocation correctly and effectively, without wasting too much tape,
then that is exactly where they belong - on real tape. We found in a
real disaster situation (big server had a large Unix filesystem get
corrupted) that by setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION to get multiple restore
streams going at once, that we restored that filespace many times faster
than by any other possible backup/restore method, TSM or anything else.
We also found that setting RESOURCEUTILIZATION high was much more
efficient than any attempt to divide up the restore manually. Get
several modern SDLT or LTO drives in a RTL (Real Tape Library) streaming
data into a GigE pipe at once, and you're moving a lot of data very
fast. Restore of large filespace(s) from disk simply cannot beat real
tapes, with collocation, and the TSM RESOURCEUTILIZATION setting
automating the process of creating multiple restore streams.

Roger Deschner      University of Illinois at Chicago
rogerd AT uic DOT edu
======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.=====





On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nancy L Backhaus wrote:

>Op System AIX 5.3 ML 3
>Nightly Backup 2 -2 1/2 TB
>Library - ADIC I2000 Scalar
>18 LTO Tape Drives
>LTO 2 Tapes
>600 slots
>Clients - 135 (Wintel)
>AIX -26 (Sybase, SQL, and DB2)
>
>We are looking into Virtual Tape Technology for our environment.    1
1/2s
>TB data first backs up to disk then to onsite tape then we make a 
>backup of our onsite tape to a copy stgpool and store those tapes
offsite  for
>disaster recovery.    The other 1 TB of data is a DB2 database that
we
>back up directly to onsite tape and of course make a copy of the
onsite
>tape to offsite tape for disaster recovery.   We can't get our
backups
>done and out the door to meet our RTO objective.     We are looking
to
add
>a VTL and reduce our tape drive and slot capacity in a new library
to
>offset some of the cost for a virtual tape library.    We would like
to
>also take advantage of collocation and setup library sharing too.
>
>
>I would like to know what vendors you are using for virtual tape?
>
>Pros/Cons(Any regrets, Success Stories).
>
>
>
>Thank You.
>
>
>Nancy Backhaus
>Enterprise Systems
>(716)887-7979
>HealthNow, NY
>716-887-7979
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments are for

>the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
proprietary,
confidential, trade secret or privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a
violation of law.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person
responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
>


**********************************************************************
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If
you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail
or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any
other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete
this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its
subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect
or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor
responsible for any delay in receipt.
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered
number 33014286
**********************************************************************