TSM and Virtual Tape Drives

[spiffy]

Hi all,

I am wondering if anyone has any links to information on TSM and Virtual tape drives.
I am looking for info on installation/integration, hardware requirements, storage requirements, etc.
Also wondering if anyone here uses this kind of system and what your opinions are on it.

I am running TSM 5.3.1 (soon to be upgraded to 4.0 in the next 6-8 months), on windows server 2003
current tape library is a 3584 using 7 drives (shared with AS/400 system)

thanks in advance

James

 

[DanGiles]

Hey Spiffy:

I haven't done this, and in general I always argue against it. VTLs are great for backup applications that do not have an embedded disk cache. But TSM itself can be thought of as a VTL. After all, what do you think is the front end of IBM's VTL?!

The only reason for looking at a VTL is if it has superior off-site duplication for DR purposes. The file/block access into the off-site VTL will have to be EXACTLY the same as with the on-site VTL, so you can restore the DR TSM server exactly the same as if you were restoring the on-site TSM server with the library still intact.

I imagine the VTLs you are looking at has data deduplication? There are a number vendors out there now: DataDomain, Falconstor, Diligent Technologies, and ExaGrid Systems. I believe Falconstor is the leader in this, since the VTL offered by most OEMs like HP and IBM are, in fact, Falsonstor.

Put out an RFI to get details on the various offerings, and see that the supplier's corporate direction aligns with your own. Short list the responses based on your requirements and submit an RFP to this shortlist. Make sure that testing IN YOUR own environment is part of the RFP.

I hope I wasn't too long winded.

Hi all,

I am wondering if anyone has any links to information on TSM and Virtual tape drives.
I am looking for info on installation/integration, hardware requirements, storage requirements, etc.
Also wondering if anyone here uses this kind of system and what your opinions are on it.

I am running TSM 5.3.1 (soon to be upgraded to 4.0 in the next 6-8 months), on windows server 2003
current tape library is a 3584 using 7 drives (shared with AS/400 system)

thanks in advance

James

 

[spiffy]

Nope not long winded at all...

I am a point where I need to either get another 3584 library and use all 12 LTO2 drives for it, or to go with a VTL solution - either one is not cheap, and I probably need to look into increasing my Diskpool from 200Gb to at leat 6TB to hold 2 days data on it...


decisions decisions...

 

[sgabriel62]

Now Ive used Virtual tape now in two instances - once via EMC Clarrion and my second via Sepaton - and each working environment tends to go both ways in respect to faster local restore options as well as DR and getting data to an awaiting STBY TSM server - which a colleague and I are about to do here this month.
Theory is the same as a physical library but it allows for Disk to Disk replication at the block level to another array, with vendor add-ins of course.
I'm begining to like VTLs and the Block Level replication options more and more each day because - TSM and its ability to create additional copy pools - one of these can be at the remote location.
There is only one gripe I have - and it deals with labeling - I constantly see OS system messages being unable to read volume lablels owned by VTL/TSM relationships. This is because the OS has not touched them at all and cannot touch them so its going to complain. Now if you can deal with this as I have, perhaps figure out a way to filter out this repetitive message, then let me know.

Think about it - Virtual Tape between sites - the DR site being in Hot STBY mode, copy pool data already on site, TSM DB being updated as it receives the DB file via server to server communications; Primary site goes down - Hot STBY server goes live - your up and running from a specific point in time. And you'll have the options to reverse the process once primary site comes back online.
Physical Tape - its future purpose - in my opinion - for long term storage based against current versioning and/or portablity between platforms. Nothing more.

 

[spiffy]

I agree with you on the phsical tape thing in the future... What i think is with VTL, backing up the primary stgpool will be a breeze, there can be as many tape drives as you want (well within the manufacturers limit, but it would be more than 12 if using for example soemthing from EMC)
no clients would be waiting for a drive, I could then schedule the backup storagepool to back up to tape in the offsite 3584, have 7 of the 12 drives available for that and be done with it.

 

[Sunhillow]

Hi,

...there can be as many tape drives as you want (well within the manufacturers limit, but it would be more than 12 if using for example soemthing from EMC)

too many tape drives will use lots of virtual tapes simultaneously, so there is a certain danger you will get many very slowly filling tapes.

 

[LanT5]

Think about it - Virtual Tape between sites - the DR site being in Hot STBY mode, copy pool data already on site, TSM DB being updated as it receives the DB file via server to server communications; Primary site goes down - Hot STBY server goes live - your up and running from a specific point in time. And you'll have the options to reverse the process once primary site comes back online.

This is exactly what I am chasing right now. Looking at different VTL vendors, what to look out for when implementing a VTL, de-dup is it time to jump in or wait for it to mature, how to architect, configure, and implement it.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Mr_Smith]

Along these lilnes. I was present at user group some years back and IBM made a presentation on updagting the primary and secondary TSM instances in sync. Your local and offsite had to be up but that would mean instant in sync cutover. Never saw it as a feature. Anyone know if they dumped it?
Thanks
Mr_Smith

 

[OKTSMGURU21]

I am using a Sepaton VTL right now, and I am having problems getting newly-created volumes (on the VTL) to be seen in TSM (?)

Sepaton has issued a LZ patch that allows you to take a 50-GB volume, and store about 2:1 ratio of data. Sepaton is supposed to be issuing a De-Dup patch soon.

Anyway, if anyone knows a way that I can get those volumes to be seen by TSM, please advise

 

[sgabriel62]

Hi,



too many tape drives will use lots of virtual tapes simultaneously, so there is a certain danger you will get many very slowly filling tapes.

Interesting you say that - The VTL will emulate whatever tape library that is available via its firmware. Therefore, it will be good practice to pick and choose the correct emulation based on your desired expectations and purpose.
I can tell you that Default first choice selection may get you started but I'll bet you'll eventually change. I've found that IBM 3584 and ADIC emulations offer good results for specific reasons or to transition into.

 

[sgabriel62]

I am using a Sepaton VTL right now, and I am having problems getting newly-created volumes (on the VTL) to be seen in TSM (?)

Sepaton has issued a LZ patch that allows you to take a 50-GB volume, and store about 2:1 ratio of data. Sepaton is supposed to be issuing a De-Dup patch soon.

Anyway, if anyone knows a way that I can get those volumes to be seen by TSM, please advise

Let's Discuss - when we're caught up