At my last place other sites were using TSM and sweared by it. It was
certainly different in that it that they spoke of "how many versions" of
each file one wanted to keep.
I recall they spent quite a bit of time running consolidating jobs which
cleaned up space. I presumed this was disk space but also could have been
making new fulls as some backup would be spread over too many tapes.
I thought there was some limit upon which, if your server was spread over
too many tapes, it would do a real new full. That would negate the concept
of incrementals forever though.
Robert Maiello
Pioneer Data Systems.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:55:01 -0400, George Sinclair
<George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> wrote:
>Well,
>
>As one person remarked, it was TSM I was thinking of when I remarked
>that there was a backup software package that prided itself on this
>concept of infinite incrementals or some such thing. A google search on
>TSM shows the following as the first hit:
>
>IBM *Tivoli* *Storage* *Manager* - Product overview
><http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/storage-mgr/>
>
>(http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/storage-mgr/)
>
>wherein it mentions as one advantage:
>"Intelligent backups and restores utilizing a revolutionary progressive
>incremental backup and restore strategy, where only new and used files
>are backed up"
>
>Not sure if I like that approach or not. Should I like that? Why does
>that make me nervous??? Can anyone attest to this feature being good or
>bad? Has anyone played with this, or can you defend or aver this type of
>feature? Sounds suspect to me. After all, won't you end up with a ton of
>tapes to do recovers unless they conglomerate backups? Hmm ...
>
>George
>
>Oscar Olsson wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Siobhan Ellis wrote:
>>
>>SE> I agree with this. In the end, it will come down to potential piece
of
>>SE> functionality that you want. Interestingly enough, Veritas often
>>SE> steals customers away from legato by just giving them the software -
>>SE> or as near damnit!
>>
>>OK, so NetBackup and Networker both suck. :) How about TSM then? In
>>particular, platform support, sharing of media between storage nodes,
>>price, support, and NDMP support (ie no dedicated drive or extra software
>>or any of that crap). I know this has been brought up before, and might
>>seem a bit off-topic but I think many of us are interested to know, since
>>its not easy to find a fairly non-biased opinion on this topic.
>>
>>//Oscar
>>
>>--
>>Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
>>to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
>>http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
>>also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
>>should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
>>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
>to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
>http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
>also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
>should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
