Orville,
Thanks for your thoughts. We do use Control-M for all of our scheduling in
the Unix environment, and are moving towards Windows deployment too.
I am surprised, though, about your comment on licensing. I thought each
TSM server instance on a separate physical server needed a license (per
processor). Is this not true? Is it a new policy?
Robin Sharpe
Berlex Labs
|---------+------------------------------->
| | Orville Lantto |
| | <orville.lantto@GLAS|
| | SHOUSE.COM> |
| | Sent by: "ADSM: Dist|
| | Stor Manager" |
| | <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT ED|
| | U> |
| | |
| | |
| | 03/13/2006 01:40 PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "ADSM: Dist Stor |
| | Manager" |
| | |
|---------+------------------------------->
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
|
|
|To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
|
|cc:
|
|Subject:
|
| Re:
|
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The approach is valid and can reap significant backup/restore time benefits
for the clients.
Two points:
1) No new licensing cost are involved. TSM is
licensed by the environment, not the number of TSM servers.
2) Consider the complexity of resources scheduling
between many servers. Most sites have a limited number of tape drives and
contention can be a bear to schedule out with so many independent servers
and their separate schedulers. An external admin scheduling utility may be
needed.
Orville L. Lantto
Glasshouse Technologies, Inc.
________________________________
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Robin Sharpe
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 11:03 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L]
Dear colleagues,
It's time for us to split our TSM into several new instances because our
database is now just too large -- 509GB -- and still growing. My initial
plan is to create five TSMs - four plus a library manager - on the existing
server (an 8-way, 12GB HP rp7410 with 15 PCI slots). This is cost
effective since no additional hardware or license is needed - just lots of
SAN disk for the databases, which we have available. But, I've been
thinking.... what do you think about the following:
A more "creative" approach is to place the "new" TSM servers on existing
large clients. This has several advantages:
- eliminates need to acquire new servers, saving physical room, power
and cooling requirements, additional maintenance.
- client benefits by sending its backup to local disk using shared
memory protocol. Eliminates potential network bottleneck.
- Client sends data to tapes using library sharing; no need for storage
agent.
- Use of local disk eliminates the need for SANergy
- heavy clients "pay" for their usage by providing backup services for
smaller clients.
There are also some concerns (not necessarily disadvantages):
- May require CPU, memory, and/or I/O upgrades (still cheaper than
buying a server)
- TSM operation may impact client's primary app. Can be controlled by
PRM on HP-UX.
- Incurs licensing cost.
Thanks for any insights....
Robin Sharpe
Berlex Labs
|
