ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] migrating tape storage pools

2012-08-09 10:52:04
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] migrating tape storage pools
From: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:23:20 -0400
SAY what? We do moves all day long.  If the tape is in the ATL (unlikely)
it moves data to another copypool tape directly. If the tape is offsite it
recreates the valid data from the onsite/primary stgpool.
On Aug 9, 2012 10:05 AM, "Huebner,Andy,FORT WORTH,IT" <
Andy.Huebner AT alconlabs DOT com> wrote:

> You cannot use move data on a copy tape.  I have tried.
> I am very interested if you find a good solution.  We are moving some of
> our copies to a different drive type.
>
>
> Andy Huebner
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> BEYERS Kurt
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:09 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: [ADSM-L] migrating tape storage pools
>
> Good morning,
>
> We are in the process of migrating several tape storage pools, both
> primary and copy, from LTO generation x to LTO generation y.
>
> It is easy for primary storage pools, since the incremental backup
> mechanism is taking all the primary storage pools in scope:
>
> *         Redirect the backups to an LTO_Y storage pool
>
> *         Migrate in the background  the LTO_X storage pool to the LTO_Y
> with a duration of x minutes
>
> However  this does not work for copy storage pools since there is a valid
> reason why a backup would be kept in multiple copy storage pool volumes.
> But this implies that the copy storage pool from generation LTO_Y needs to
> be rebuild from scratch. Which is time consuming and expensive (more tape
> volumes, more slots,more offsite volumes ....). Are there really no other
> workarounds available?
>
> An option might be that given the fact we use dedicated device classes for
> each  sequential storage pool and that multiple libraries will be or are
>  defined for each LTO generation:
>
>
> *         A DRM volume is linked to a copy storage pool
>
> *         The copy storage pool is linked to a device class
>
> *         Hence change the library in the device class from LTO_X to LTO_Y
> for the copy storage pool
>
> Would this workaround work? Then I could perform a daily move data in the
> background to get rid from the LTO_X copy storage pool volumes. Will test
> it myself of course.
>
> It would be great too if IBM  could consider introducing the concept of a
>  'copy storage pool group' consisting of multiple copy storage pools that
> contains only 1 backup of the item.  Perhaps I should raise an RFC for it
> if other TSM users find it also a good feature. So please provide me some
> feedback. Thanks in advance!
>
> Regards,
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
> *** Disclaimer ***
> Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie
> Auguste Reyerslaan 52, 1043 Brussel
>
> nv van publiek recht
> BTW BE 0244.142.664
> RPR Brussel
> http://www.vrt.be/gebruiksvoorwaarden
>
> This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized
> representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using,
> copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments.
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any
> attachments.
>
> Thank you.
>