Julie, we've had that issue raised also with restores having to wait for
the mainframe to be recovered (which for us is around 12 hours).  What
we've told them is that if they have a business need to -begin- their
recovery sooner (and they would have to pick a priority list), that we
would bring up a mainframe mini-system that would become a recovery,
ADSM engine (1/2 hour).

We also are seeing the ARCSERVE and ADSM cohabitation.  Now if they are
actually able to manage the media for arcserve, I guess that it's hard
to argue with every system restoring it's own data, but what if in a
disaster recovery scenario, your systems have to be recovered offsite.
Does your subscription accomodate each system to have the complete set
of hardware to recover (mostly the DLT? drive)???????

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie Phinney [SMTP:jphinney AT HUMANA DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 12:09 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
>
> We looked at Harbor and FDR upstream, initially (5 years ago?) (and
> also a
> slick looking product called EDM or EDSM or ESM from Legent) and I
> thought
> Harbor, at the time, looked slicker than ADSM.  But that initial cost,
> compared to ADSM-MVS's monthly pricing scheme, is what pushed us to
> ADSM.
> ADSM's not perfect, but it's too sufficient for us to have any big
> desire
> to re-do another roll out.  We've recently implemented ArcServe for
> disaster recovery.  We are doing both ADSM and ArcServe.  ADSM during
> the
> week, ArcServe on the weekends.  There is some concern that in the
> event of
> total disaster, any mainframe and network based recovery would be too
> slow,
> thus, the ArcServe addition.
> Julie
>
>
>
>
> DSanders AT INTERNAL.MASSMUTUAL DOT COM on 02/11/98 08:43:43 AM
>
> Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:    (bcc: Julie Phinney/Green Bay/Humana)
> Subject:  Re: ADSM alternatives
>
>
>
>
> Can I ask why (in general terms)??
> Also, I wanted to note that there wasn't a great response to my
> question
> about other ADSM replacement product analysis.  Does this mean:
> *there aren't a lot of MVS server customers here on this forum?
> *that people jumped on ADSM initially and for various reasons, don't
> want to convert to another product?
> *that people want to keep quiet about the analysis they may have done?
> *that no other product does the job of ADSM?
> I appreciate the responses that I DID get and would appreciate all
> other
> comments?????
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Smith, Richard [SMTP:smithrr AT MARITZ DOT COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 9:03 AM
> > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> >
> >         Just a note... We are using Harbor for one of our NT servers
> > and
> > about
> > 10 Novell servers, and plan to replace it with ADSM.
> >
> > Rick Smith
> > Maritz, Inc.
> > Storage & Security Administration
> > smithrr AT maritz DOT com
> > (314) 827-1584
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From:         Hauenstein Peter[SMTP:Peter.Hauenstein AT AID.ZH DOT CH]
> > > Sent:         Wednesday, February 11, 1998 3:17 AM
> > > To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > > Subject:      Re: ADSM alternatives
> > >
> > > If you are looking for another solution, have a look at Harbor
> from
> > > Interlink.
> > > web: http:/www.interlink.com
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >