The reason that I don't want to use DSSU is because there is more
management than a VTL.  For example, if I required more disk for DSSU, I
would have to attached the new disk, zone it, possible rebooting the
server to see the new disks, size the DSSU correctly (to match the
volume/size of my backups) so as to keep a low overhead during the
reclaiming process of storage when the DSSU is full.  With a VTL, I add
disks to the VTL, inventory the physical tape library and I am done.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org] 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 8:01 PM
To: Lee, Kenneth (SBS US)
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] VTL questions

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 08:31:38PM -0500, Lee, Kenneth (SBS US) wrote:
> I would like the following:
> 
> 1.    Backup some clients to VTL.
> 2.    At the same time, backup some clients to STK SL8500.
> 3.    In the day time, I would like the VTL to migrate the virtual
> tapes to the STK SL8500 physical tape.  I don't want to do duplication
> through NetBackup.  Since the VTL tapes have the same bar code as a
> physical tapes, NetBackup will think that the tapes are ejected.

Why don't use disk storage units instead?  You'll direct some clients to
the DSSUs and then stage those to tape on a regular basis.  I think it
solves both your problems - the speed of disk-based backups with the
security and long-term storage of tape backups.  Restores go from
whichever copy is available - disk if it's still hanging around or tape
if the disk image was deleted to free up space for more backups.

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org