Zlatko,

For Exchange, you will not get any benefit by binding
the meta objects to a disk only storage pool because
there is no data stored with the meta object.

In fact, with Exchange, since all of the objects
created during a backup are part of the same
transaction, the objects will need to have the same
copy destination, or the transaction will fail.

Bottom line: You should keep all Exchange objects
for a single storage group bound to the same management class.
The main reason is to ensure that all physical objects
that make up a single logical backup are maintained
for the required policy definitions.
You can send different storage group backups to different
managements classes, but all objects for the same
storage group should be sent to the same management class.

Thanks,

Del

----------------------------------------------------

> we should not do this or there would be no benefit of doing so? Are there
> any known issues (like transaction sending to more than one stgpool) if
> these zero-lenght object are bound to different class?
>