Jerry Lawson wrote:
> We have decided that we need to split up am existing storage pool setup (and
> associated management classes) into two separate pools. This is being done
> primarily because of changes we need to make in how tapes are managed, but the
> net effect will be a separation of our existing large pool into two pools; one
> for servers, and one for desktop machines. Thanks to the earlier answers, we
> now have the new pools setup on our MVS Server. (Both pools will be on the
> same server.)
>
> ...
>
> However, it appears to me
> that I now have data spread across 4 storage pools - the DASD and Tape pools
> from the original Domain, and the DASD and tape pools from the new domain. Is
> this a problem?
We recently did something similar, when we got 3590 drives for our AIX server.
Until then, we used a 3490E drive with collocation on, but with 3590 drives
I decided to handle collocation different for small and large clients.
We had the following hierarchy:
Domain Disk STG Tape STG
----------------------------------------------------------
STANDARD BACKUPPOOL BACKUP3490
STANDARD BACKUPPOOL BACKUP3490
I created new storage groups, changed the hierarchy in policy domain
STANDARD and created a new policy domain:
Domain Disk STG Tape STG
----------------------------------------------------------
STANDARD BACKUPPOOL SMALL3590
STANDARD BACKUPPOOL SMALL3590
HUGE BACKUPHUGE HUGE3590
The large nodes were then simply moved from policy domain STANDARD to HUGE.
That's all. So we now have clients, which have their backups spread over
3 or even 4 storage pools in 2 policy domains. I have not seen any problems
caused by this. Now I am watching the old STG BACKUP3490 for nearly empty
tapes, which I move to SMALL3590 or HUGE3590, whatever is appropriate.
Hope this helps.
Reinhard Mersch Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet
Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Einsteinstrasse 60, 48149 Muenster, Germany
E-Mail: mersch AT uni-muenster DOT de Phone: +49(251)83-2488
|
