ADSM-L

Re: one stgpool migrates to two?

2015-10-04 18:00:05
Subject: Re: one stgpool migrates to two?
From: INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
To: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
Date: 3/19/98 4:58PM
I know what you mean about multiple pools - I run two, for pretty much the
same reasons - I need one tape pool collocated, and one I don't want that
way. Managing two disk pools has its problems; I hate to think about having
more than that.

Jerry Lawson
jlawson AT thehartford DOT com





______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re: one stgpool migrates to two?
Author:  INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
Date:    3/19/98 4:58 PM


Jerry,

You're right, there doesn't seem to be a way to do what I'd like.
I'll admit to a certain amount of laziness on my part for this
question. Basically we have a small disk pool (ca 30GB), and
several different projects whose data should be kept in separate
tape pools. On any given night, the disk pool is enough to
cover the entire backup for all projects. The problem is, if
I have to split the disk pool into separate project-based
disk pools, there are bound to be many nights when one
project overflows its disk pool, prompting a migration that I
don't want to have happening during the backup window.
Meanwhile, I might have plenty of disk space from one of the
other projects. What I'd really like to have is a single disk
pool, so that I don't have to determine which projects are
backing up more or less data this week.

Maybe a v3rN feature (where N is an element of the set of real
integers)?

"It's a dog eat dog world,                Thomas A. La Porte
 and I'm wearing milkbone underwear."     DreamWorks SKG
              - Norm Peterson             <tlaporte AT anim.dreamworks DOT com>

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Jerry Lawson wrote:

>---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes ---------------------------

>From: INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
>Date: 3/18/98 1:21PM
>To: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
>*To: *ADSM-L at SNADGATE
>Subject: one stgpool migrates to two?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Thomas.
>
>As a general case, I'd say the answer to your question is "No".
>
 >It is certainly possible to have multiple copygroups going to the same pool -
>just point him to the pool of your choice.  But the migration from that pool to

>the next is controlled by the first pool.  The only "exception" to that process

>that I can think of is if there was a size limit on that pool, causing files
>over a certain size to go to another pool.  But that doesn't sound like what
you >want - it would be indiscriminate with regards to where the files came from

>only how big they are. > >Jerry Lawson >jlawson AT thehartford DOT com >
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>