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
individual files.

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
LTO1
w/2 drives for an offsite copy pool and I've had more problems with it
than
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
don't
think IBM will phase out the 3592 line because it's there cash cow.
You pay
$30k for a 3592 or $10k for an LTO why would you phase out your money
maker.
Besides large mainframe environments highly use 3590 technology.
Although I
do believe LTO storage capacity will exceed 3592 drives in the near
future
and upgrades in capacity to 3592 line will be slower than those for
LTO.

-----Original Message-----
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
to
> > invest in 3590's -or- are you converting to other (LTO?) tape
technology?
>
>
> 3592.  Mmmm.
>
> tsm: GLMAIL>q vol T00054
>
> Volume Name               Storage      Device      Estimated    Pct
Volume
>                           Pool Name    Class Name   Capacity   Util
Status
>                                                         (MB)
> ------------------------  -----------  ----------  ---------  -----
--------
> T00054                    GLMAIL-3592  3592DEV     569,517.6   97.5
Full
>
>
>
> > Is anyone considering/already doing a substantial 3590->LTO
conversion?
> > 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
frame
conversion, library manager upgrade, and 3592's and 3590's can't
coexist in
the same frame.

We may not *convert*, but we may move our 3590's out of our L unit,
upgrade
it, and move in a couple of these babies.  They do look nice, but I
still
hate
the thought of the dataloss, if one cart gets damaged or fails.
ooooh.

bob

>
> - Allen S. Rout
***************************EMAIL DISCLAIMER***************************
This
email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and are
intended
solely for the use of th individual or entity to whom they are
addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible
for
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it,
is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error,
please
delete it and notify the sender or contact Health Information
Management
312.413.4947.