we are in the process of setting up a High availability/disaster
recovery site and we have decided to go with a LTO library at the remote
site for the copy pool and keep our current 3 frame 3494 with 3590Es as
the primary sequential pool.
the reasoning behind it is that the LTO are great for highspeed
streaming backups (non collocated) (remote access) where the 3590Es are
better at co-located storage and faster at finding and restoring
There is also a trade off in physical size, the HA/DR site is not as
large as the primary computer center.
>>> rdearm1 AT UIC DOT EDU 4/6/04 9:55:32 AM >>>
I'm going in the direction of the 3592 upgrade for my 3494. I have an
w/2 drives for an offsite copy pool and I've had more problems with it
the 3590 drives in my 3494 primary storage pool. I believe the 3592
technology to be much more stable and tested than the LTO models. I
think IBM will phase out the 3592 line because it's there cash cow.
$30k for a 3592 or $10k for an LTO why would you phase out your money
Besides large mainframe environments highly use 3590 technology.
do believe LTO storage capacity will exceed 3592 drives in the near
and upgrades in capacity to 3592 line will be slower than those for
From: Bob Booth - CITES [mailto:booth AT UIUC DOT EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:06 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: ?continue using 3590's or convert to LTO tape?
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:37:52AM -0400, asr AT UFL DOT EDU wrote:
> ==> In article <4071C3EE.8050102 AT Yale DOT Edu>, James R Owen
<Jim.Owen AT YALE DOT EDU> writes:
> > Are you [other sites substantially invested in 3590's] continuing
> > invest in 3590's -or- are you converting to other (LTO?) tape
> 3592. Mmmm.
> tsm: GLMAIL>q vol T00054
> Volume Name Storage Device Estimated Pct
> Pool Name Class Name Capacity Util
> ------------------------ ----------- ---------- --------- -----
> T00054 GLMAIL-3592 3592DEV 569,517.6 97.5
> > Is anyone considering/already doing a substantial 3590->LTO
> > If so, we would like to talk with you.
> And it fits in your extant 3494.
Ah. Careful with this statement. It does fit, however, you need a
conversion, library manager upgrade, and 3592's and 3590's can't
the same frame.
We may not *convert*, but we may move our 3590's out of our L unit,
it, and move in a couple of these babies. They do look nice, but I
the thought of the dataloss, if one cart gets damaged or fails.
> - Allen S. Rout
email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and are
solely for the use of th individual or entity to whom they are
If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, any disclosure,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
delete it and notify the sender or contact Health Information