Paul,
I should have mentioned more in my response. Our nodes have been separated into
three domain because they all belong to one of three groups, controlled by three
different sections in our company. I do not believe we are limiting these
clients to one management class because, if need be, more management classes can
be defined in each domain. If a group decides they need another archive
schedule with different retentions defined, we can do that for them. For our
setup, one management class with one backup copy group and one archive copy
group for each domain works well and keeps it simple. We do have DIRMC set up
for each client, but I do believe this only applies to backups and not
archives. The additional benefit is not having to worry about directories being
archived to a mgt class that we do not wish which was a big problem for us a
while back. A note in the readme for the 3.1.0.7 client says that by default
directories will now bind to the default management class rather than the one
with the longest retention. I still see this as a problem if I archive using a
mgt class that is not the default mgt class and both classes have different
destination tape pools...
Thank you for the comments and more are welcomed.
Regards,
adam
__________________
Adam Slesinger
Corporate Information Systems
Brown & Sharpe, RI
Phone: (401) 886-2236
Pager: (800) 913-5395
Email: aslesinger AT us.bnsmc DOT com
Paul Fielding wrote:
> >When we would archive,
> >files were being managed under the mgt class we specified, but the
> directories
> >were getting backed up to the mgt class with the longest retension period.
> With
> >each mgt class having a different destination tape pool, many many tapes
> were
> >being mounted! We don't worry about this now when there is only mgt class
> per
> >domain.
>
> It seems to me that you're limiting your flexibility alot by doing it this
> way. Essentially, you're limiting each client to one mgmt class. I would
> personally find that unacceptable. Why don't you try using a Directory Mgmt
> Class? If you set a DIRMC in a client options set, point it to a 100 MB
> (even that is overkill) disk pool that migrates to it's own tape pool (I've
> yet to ever go over one tape in the tape pool for any installation I've
> done), you effectively send all extended directory information to one place,
> simplifying your life. Just make sure you give it a good long retention.
>
> The way you're using Domains is not the way it was intended. Domains were
> intended to allow segregation of clients that have drastically different
> needs/policies/etc, generally separating large departments that want
> independant control over their storage. It was not intended as a fix to
> lots of tape mounts, and I don't think should be taken as such, you only
> limit yourself in the long term....
>
> Paul
--
|
