Unless you have some really stringent or unusal requirements about
mixing node backups on one tape,
it sounds to me like you would be much better off with one tape pool and
just turning on colocation. You would get better usage of your disk and
tape.
Or to absolutely guarantee no mixing on the tapes, declare two different
tape storage pools. But you can still have them live in the same tape
library.
I don't get the point of the way it is set up now, either.
=======================================================================
Wanda Prather
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab
301-953-6000 X8769
wanda_prather AT jhuapl DOT edu
"Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."
- Scott Adams/Dilbert
=======================================================================
> ----------
> From: Dennis Lovelady[SMTP:DennisLovelady AT kemet DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 10:29 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
> Subject: Re: Merging ADSM Storage Pools
>
> Hello, all:
>
> Well, I have finally reached my frustration tolerance level. :^(
>
> We had ADSM installed fairly recently by a contractor. I don't
> believe much of the configuration was done correctly (or, more
> specifically, it does not function the way we would like it to).
> I would like to hear what others have to say about our options,
> and how _you_ might set it up.
>
> Our initial ADSM site is fairly simple. We have:
> SP with two high nodes
> One node has the server and admin. client, the other node
> is a client.
> (2) 3590 drives attached to the server node
> SP switch for communications between the nodes
>
> The way the contractor set this up, each of the drives is effectively
> allocated by one node. There are two tape libraries, two tape pools,
> etc. Each node has one tape library, one tape pool, one backup pool,
> .. well, you get the idea.
>
> We _do_ want backups from both nodes to be capable of running
> simultaneously. We _do_ want to prevent mixing node backups on one
> tape (did I word that right?). But we do _not_ want to be constrained
> in such a way that the tapes intended for a specific node must be
> mounted in a specific drive; and (more importantly) we do _not_ want
> to be unable to do backups when one of the drives is failed (as it
> is right now, for the fourth time).
>
> Do we ask too much? It seems to me that we should be able to pull
> this off. Otherwise, how in the world will we ever survive when we
> begin backing up our 60+ Novell / NT servers via ADSM? 60+
> drives???!!!
>
> I know I can't expect a "here's exactly how you do it" reply from
> this list, but a few pointers as far as capabilities and options
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your tolerance. We have a very small staff for our
> Unix/AIX/Oracle administration, and too little time allocated for
> training in this area. I greatly appreciate the help.
>
>
> Dennis Lovelady
>
> (Hi, Kai.)
>
> (The following signature looks right only with a fixed-pitch font)
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> *
> * _ _
> *
> * / ) ( \
> *
> * _ / / Dennis Lovelady \ \ _
> *
> * ( ( () _ Unix / AIX System Administrator _ () ) )
> *
> *( \ \ \) / ) Oracle D.B.A. ( \ (/ / / )
> *
> ( \ \ \ \_/ / \ \_/ / / /
> )*
> *\ / Dennis AT Lovelady DOT com \ /
> *
> * \ / Dennis.Lovelady AT KEMET DOT com \ /
> *
> /~~\ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
> /~/\*
> [[[|]]] Simpsonville, SC. [[[|]]](
> *
> \__[[[|]]]__________________________________________________[[[|]]]_\/
>
|
