Stephan Rittmann wrote:

>  Hi Eric,
>
> yes you're right, but we have no other choice. We are a service provider for
> banks
> and these banks all have a 16Mb TR. For their size (10 to 50 workstations) the
> ring speed is
> enough.
> In the past these companies had 6 fileservers with approx. 2 to4 GB disks. Now
> the disks become
> bigger and bigger and they have only one server with 18 GB. The ring speed as
> really enough
> for such an installation. I can understand that they don't want to spend money
> for a
> faster network. The problem is that we now have the same amount of data on 
> less
> physical
> servers.

Are these servers physically close to the ADSM server?  If so there are some
tricks you could do with the storage hardware.  For example, if you can set up
mirroring on 3 drives and then shut the database down, break the mirror on one
drive, bring up the database, import the drive locally to the server, and back 
it
up that way.  A restore could be done by importing the three drives locally to 
the
ADSM server and restore locally.

However, this solution is FAR more expensive than a private FDDI or GB ethernet
network just for backups/restores to ADSM.

>
> I think that we need a second kind of restore ability with ADSM.
>
> Im looking forward to other suggestions or opinions.
>
> Bye,
> Stephan Rittmann
>
> Hi Stephan!
> Restoring 18 Gb. trough Token Ring is not a good idea. Your company should
> think about a separate backup network. We are currently thinking about it,
> based on 1Gb. Ethernet.
> Kindest regards,
> Eric van Loon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Rittmann [mailto:srittmann AT FIDUCIA DOT DE]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 13:59
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: ADSM and big file-servers
>
> Hi all,
>
> I want to start a discussion about ADSM and backing up big file servers. In
> our
> environment we have 16 Mbit token-ring networks and we are using ADSM to
> back
> up all of the critical data.
> The biggest file servers that we use at the moment has a 18 GB data
> partition.
> Backing up these servers with incremental backup is no problem. It works for
> a
> long time, everybody is satisfied about the short backup times. But what
> will
> happen  in the case of a disk failure. If the server was very full, you have
> to
> restore up to 18 GB. With our kind of netwotk this would take about 20
> houres
> or more.
> What I want to say is; The disks in the servers  become bigger and bigger,
> the
> backup time is still the same because of the incremental technique from
> ADSM.
> I'm sure that most of the useres from ADSM don't think about the long
> restore
> times in case of a disk failure.
> The difference between the network speed and the size of the data disks
> becomes
> bigger and I see a problem in this fact.
>
> What are you think about these? And how could we solve these problem?
>
> Stephan Rittmann
> FIDUCIA AG, Karlsruhe
> Germany

--
Ray Schafer                   | schafer AT tkg DOT com
Ray Schafer                   | schafer AT tkg DOT com
The Kernel Group              | Distributed Systems Management
http://www.tkg.com