If you ever get off the DLT's (they are notorious for media faults, there's
just too many friction points that cause debris to fly)... the 3494/3590
solution can be quite amazing, especially for large data base backups --- I
have a client using 4-drive silos for SAP backups (on two different HA
servers), he runs 3 threads of BackInt and gets (effectively) 80 GB/hr over
FDDI network (BackInt applies a light-compression scheme to the data, which
accounts for some of that speed)... every day, he books the 3 tape drives
"like a cheap motel", going straight to tape for each client's appropriate
backup window, even has alerts calling his pager if it misses its
performance numbers by more than 10% on any given day.
Don France
Technical Architect, P.A.C.E.
San Jose, CA
mailto:dfrance AT pacbell DOT net
PACE - http://www.pacepros.com
Bus-Ph: (408) 257-3037
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Nelson [SMTP:knelson AT OPENMIC DOT COM]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 1:29 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Cost justification
>
> I am curious as to the problems you've been
> experiencing with the
> STK
> library. If those could be addressed, would you
> consider an upgrade
> to
> another STK library that would allow you to reuse the
> DLT drives,
> add 9840
> drives and add capacity? You could also dynamically
> share the single
> library
> and all the tape transports between the two ADSM
> servers rather than
> managing two libraries in a direct-attach fashion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Nelson Voice: 612.891.2867
> Gresham Enterprise Storage Fax: 612.891.4763
> knelson AT openmic DOT com Web:
> http://www.gresham-computing.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
> [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On
> Behalf Of
> > Walter, Jeannine
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 11:33 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Cost justification
> >
> >
> > OK, expert storage specialists,
> > I'm in a bit of a bind here. I have proposed a new storage
> > solution for the
> > IT department and I'm getting some flack on
> pricing. Here's what
> I
> > proposed:
> > A new 3494 library with 4 3590 E tape drives
> > A new IBM F50 ADSM server with TSM 3.7
> > Cost is in the neighborhood of $350,000.
> > Here's what we currently have:
> > 1 ADSM server (an IBM S7A) that also runs Oracle and SAP
> > StorageTek 9714 with 6 DLT 7000 drives
> >
> > The problem we currently have:
> > 8 Unix servers
> > 14 NT servers
> > and a 400 GB Oracle/SAP database that gets backed
> up every night
> > through SQL
> > Backtrack to ADSM.
> > Copy storage pools are created for file systems and
> SAP production
> data
> > every day.
> > 3 more Unix servers and at least 7 more NT servers
> will be added
> > before Jan
> > 15, 2000.
> > As it stands right now, the 9714 is totally booked.
> The box works
> all day
> > and all night. I've done everything I can to improve
> > performance. The best
> > transfer rate I get is during the copy storage
> pools and at best
> it's 11GB
> > an hour. Eventually some of the 400 GB will be
> archived with
> > HSM. Finding
> > time in the schedule to do this now is impossible.
> >
> > My proposal was to leave ADSM on the Oracle/SAP machine and
> > connect the 3494
> > to it. This machine would then only backup SAP and create
> > off-site storage
> > pools for it.
> > The new F50 would run only ADSM and it would be
> attached to the
> current
> > 9714. It would back up all of our file servers
> that the current
> > SAP machine
> > is doing and all new boxes that come on line.
> >
> > So is this a good idea? Any other thoughts? What
> would be better
> or more
> > cost effective?
> > Management is having trouble dealing with a none
> glamorous piece
> > of hardware
> > (that will only save their butts down the line).
> They don't see
> that now
> > though. They only see this box that costs a
> fortune and doesn't
> carry any
> > users.
> >
> > I, personally, want to stay just with an IBM
> solution because I am
> sick of
> > the finger pointing that goes on now with our
> StorageTek unit.
> StorageTek
> > is constantly blaming IBM for the problems with the
> library and
> IBM is
> > constantly telling me that the problem is with our
> StorageTek
> library.
> >
> > What other solutions are available? I looked at
> StorageTek and
> > IBM but not
> > any other competitors.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jeannine Walter
> >
> > Purina Mills, Inc.
> > St. Louis, MO
> > 314-768-4181
> > Jeannine_Walter AT Purina-Mills DOT com
> <mailto:Jeannine_Walter AT Purina-Mills DOT com>
> >
>
|