Background:
I've been on a TSM training course and used TSM to recover files very
occasionally, never used Netbackup and used Networker a lot.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:54:59 -0400, Robert Maiello
<robert.maiello AT PFIZER DOT COM> wrote:
>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.
in TSM you can specify both the number of versions and the time to keep
versions, if I remember correctly you can't time out all versions.
>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.
TSMs' use of disk is still probably the best on the market, versions can
be migrated from dosk to tape, there is also the ability to merge multiple
tapes together eg when 2 tapes have only 40% useful files merge these onto
another blank tape. Thirdly I recall there was the ability to consolidate
one or meor servers onto one or more tapes ( to reduce the number of tapes
required for a full recover.
>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.
Don't recall a limit, but do recall that you can simulate the full inc
cycle instead of inc for ever.
One old complaint about TSM was the poor user interface, it now has a
web/java gui, however I found this worse than Networkers - but this might
be down to being used to Networker, I found it difficult to find things in
the TSM GUI.
Of interest to me was the training for Networker I've seen consists of 2
two day courses, the TSM course was one week (basic TSM) with several
other one week courses for SAN DBs etc.. I can't compare the quality of
the courses as I've not been on the Networker ones.
>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
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
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
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
