On 25 mrt 2009, at 18:34, Gill, Geoffrey L. wrote:

About 4 years ago some people here decided to bring in Netbackup. No
good reason at the time but everyone involved is making it sound as if
TSM was the problem. In a meeting we had yesterday to discuss moving
everything to TSM they are now making it sound like they can't get rid
of it, no technical explanations of course. Some are arguing we should
move the other way or that most companies use more than one system and
so should we. Needless to say everyone in the room, besides me, just
loves netbackup.



I'd like to ask these questions to the group if you don't mind. Feel
free to add whatever you like if you think there is a better
question I
should be asking



1.      What are you using in your infrastructure besides TSM?

I know of an environment using plain xfsdump on the cxfs/dmf
filesystems, and then there are people using things like commvault.

2.      If you have more then one is it because TSM can't fit that
situation?

xfsdump is used because it is much better aware of a DMF (HSM)
filesystem and the stubfiles than TSM on Linux. Commvault does provide
more granularity in exchange backup and restore, so that is in at
least one situation the reason it is used besides TSM.

3.      Would you prefer to have one? Which one and why?

I think both environments would be very happy to use TSM, though for
DMF filesystems there might be a licensing cost issue, xfsdump is a
lot cheaper in licensing and IBM will try to charge for all CPU's in
the supercomputer, which makes TSM less attractive....

--
Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind regards

Remco Post
r.post AT plcs DOT nl
+31 6 24821 622