Hi Juraj,
[stuff deleted]
> Tell me what you think about my requirement.
> Tell me also if you like or dislike the idea (of discussing requirements
> here) itself.
I like the idea of discussing requirements.
[stuff deleted]
> - ability to improve throughoutput of ADSM Server by adding second
> server
> to the existing one - instead of replacing the existing one
You mean having multiple servers sharing the same ADSM database disks?
Sounds good, but that means the ADSM database disks must be accessable
by more than one host. And of course the data bus to the disks must be
able to cope with the load of multiple ADSM servers. Or try using a SMP
machine (but the max. reasonable number of processors is approx. 16).
> - ability to generate offsite DB backups and backup storage pools
> over network, without need to transport media back and forth.
I think this is already possible using a SCSI storage extender. I
heard it is possible to put a library 20km away from the server, but
of course you need at least 2 libraries in order to do what you have
in mind.
[stuff deleted]
> AS
> AC <--control--> DE <--control
> DL data SR data--> Database
> SI MV
> ME E <--control
> N R data--> AA
> T <--backup DG
> data------------------> SE <--backup
> MN data--> Storage
> T Pool
> For 1) this enables to move most data inside of one
> network segment - assuming one ADSM I/O agent in
> segment,
This sounds OK. But the more ADSM agents you run, the bigger
becomes the bottleneck at ADSM server side.
> or even to use localy attached robots on clients
> for ADSM - good for file servers.
Hmm..., I think it's already possible to backup a file server
with a ADSM client, and a ADSM client is the minimum on a file
server if you want to backup it (the ADSM server is on a non
file server machine).
> For 2) this enables to move tape I/O s away from
> ADSM Server, thus freeing bus&memory bandwith
> ressources on the computer with ADSM Server.
Also OK.
[stuff deleted]
Greetings, Lothar
|
