==> In article <08A89F1DEA45E44DA4DF4585C3E0FBA0051B126C AT 
cp-its-exs04.mail.saic DOT com>, "Gill, Geoffrey L." <GEOFFREY.L.GILL AT SAIC 
DOT COM> writes:


> I bring this up because we have over 200 tapes taking up space in the
> library what are archives only and I would love to get these out and sent
> offsite. Currently a second copy of these files is sent offsite, but I would
> like to do away with that extra work too.

You might keep things onsite because you're going to (eventually) reclaim
tapes full of archive data too.  But if your archive access process really
permits the delay for the re-checking-in of the volume, then there's no good
reason not to at least stick the affected tapes on a shelf in the machine room
somewhere.


> Sure we've looked at other options, like backupsets, instead of doing an
> archive. This would eliminate the need for TSM to manage so many files. What
> I have to take into consideration though is when I would be able to do this
> since the system is busy doing "other things" with those drives.

If you're making full archives with frequency X, you can probably make
backupsets with frequency X instead.  In fact, since archives tend to involve
spinning the client disk, you might even find that building new backupsets
from (say) collocated tapes is substantially faster, in tape-mount-hours, than
making the archives.

> Has IBM considered this in any new development plans?

It might help if you made a more concrete suggestion about what features you'd
like.


- Allen S. Rout