ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] ALMS benefit to shared-library management ?

2009-08-17 17:22:31
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] ALMS benefit to shared-library management ?
From: David McClelland <david.mcclelland AT NETWORKC.CO DOT UK>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:19:41 +0100
Hi Keith,

I've worked with ALMS on customer sites in the past where a 3584 needed to
be shared between multiple TSM Servers and having a single TSM Server
instance (i.e. the TSM library manager) as a single point of failure wasn't
deemed acceptable. Also, partitioning of physical library into logical ones
may be handy where incompatible generations of tape drive technology are
being used simultaneously (although, as per my posts on this topic earlier
this year, TSM does offer more flexibility that most of us realised,
particularly with 3584 libs).

I'm sure there are a few more scenarios where ALMS may come in handy - I've
found it's certainly much more flexible than the native (non-chargeable)
partitioning that the 3584 ships with.

/David Mc
London, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Keith Arbogast
Sent: 17 August 2009 22:05
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] ALMS benefit to shared-library management ?

Wanda,
Thank you, that was very helpful.

Perhaps ALMS is intended primarily for non-TSM applications.  It
sounds like logical libraries are superfluous if TSM control points
are used correctly.  If I'm going too far with that, please let me know.

Best wishes,
Keith Arbogast

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2304 - Release Date: 08/17/09
06:08:00