> I want to create a set of backup tapes for disaster recovery that would
> only have the most recent versions of my files, I do not want all the
> extra versions.

Assuming you move data offsite with the same period as you do backups
(e.g., daily), you are churning the same amount of data each day.

You do keep fewer tapes at the "vault", but what is the cost
differential? (It depends on your retention policies).   I've often
wondered the same thing: why doesn't *SM allow us a "compromised"
copypool with only active files in it?   The answer is probably IBM
hasn't seen sufficient business case to add it to the product.

In addition, I think there are real risks in having no older versions
available (when the *SM site turns to dust or mud). First, presumably
you keep older versions because you have a perceived business need for
it. Given that you're probably writing and transporting the same number
of tapes, the increased cost of additional tapes and tape storage may
be small.  Second, needs are high and alternatives are in short supply
in times of disaster.  Having more than just active files offsite may
be very valuable.  From my experience, many client disaster recoveries
make use of point-in-time restores, where one might have thought simply
restoring active files would have been sufficient.

Hope this helps, or at least fuels the discussion, wayne

Wayne T. Smith                          ADSM AT Maine DOT edu
ADSM Technical Coordinator - UNET       University of Maine System