Been there.
Done that.
Works peachy.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Roger Deschner <rogerd AT uic DOT edu> wrote:

> As part of a major upgrade, I am considering moving some TSM DB backups
> to FILE volumes. LTO4 tapes hold a terrabyte, and the incrementals, in
> particular, are wasting a LOT of tape. I'm thinking of doing full DB
> backups to tape, and incrementals to disk FILE volumes.
>
> The manual says you can back up the TSM Database to either TAPE, or to
> Virtual Volumes on another TSM server. It doesn't mention FILE volumes.
> I seem to remember somebody long ago saying you should not consider
> that. OK, so what's wrong with backing up the TSM Database to FILE
> volumes?
>
> This would be what I suppose might be safe:
>
> Do not use a local filesystem. The FILE volumes used for DB backup
> should reside on an NFS-mounted filesystem, which can also be mounted by
> some other system. A separate physical location would be nice. This
> should be on the same NFS server which you also use to back up the
> Volume History and Device Config files. On all systems that can mount
> this NFS filesystem, it should be mounted at the same mount point as on
> the TSM server system. That is so the DB Backup volume names in the
> Volume History File are still valid.
>
> Are there any other pitfalls I am not forseeing here?
>
> Having said that, though, I have not noticed any performance difference
> between Virtual Volumes on another server, and a mounted NFS filesystem.
> The network is the speed limitation. It's just that Virtual Volumes are
> more complicated, and thereby more problem prone when a junior staff
> member is the one called in a disaster to do a TSM DB restore, while I'm
> camping in the mountains.
>
> Roger Deschner      University of Illinois at Chicago     rogerd AT uic DOT 
> edu
>               Academic Computing & Communications Center
> ======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.=====
>