I have to preface any statements I make here with the following disclosure:
I work for EMC, and worked for Data Domain before EMC acquired us.
This hopefully will not be construed as any sort of advertising.



I have been involved in a number of Data Domain/TSM implementations over the 
last couple of years.  I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, 
but there are a lot of folks out there using FILE device class via NFS.
I see a lot of advantages with FILE device class, especially with 5.5 and the 
ability to do multiple mounts of a single volume for read access, but you do 
have to weigh the potential issues of network problems and how NFS behaves.

We have recently had a customer open a PMR with IBM about TSM 5 to get an 
official response from IBM.  Unfortunately, (in my opinion) the question to IBM 
was not optimally stated - the question and response appeared to confuse TSM 
DISK class storage pools with FILE device class - at least the distinction in 
the answer wasn't clear to me.  

I'd agree that TSM DB, LOG and DISK device class storage are not optimal on NFS 
for version 5.  FILE device class over NFS works, and works well - in my 
experience.

That said, I don't see any advantage for IBM to make any statement about NFS 
support - the primary IBM offering that competes with Data Domain storage 
doesn't offer an NFS option so far as I'm aware.  I'm not suggesting there is 
an ulterior motive in the vague responses we have gotten, but that's just my 
take.  Play to your strengths :)

I can't see IBM saying they don't support NFS for version 6 for DB or LOG 
volumes for TSM 6 - DB2 specifically supports NFS as storage, and since the DB 
behind TSM 6 is DB2 ...  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.




Dale Jolliff - (Not speaking for anyone but myself.)


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
David McClelland
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:18 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] FILE Device class over NFS

I couldn't see the original posting in this thread, but I'm interested - the
only TSM statement I could find in the docs which looks like it might be
NFS-related was:

"Tivoli Storage Manager supports the use of remote file systems or drives
for reading and writing storage pool data, database backups, and other data
operations. Remote file systems in particular may report successful writes,
even after being configured for synchronous operations. This mode of
operation causes data integrity issues if the file system can fail after
reporting a successful write. Check with the vendor of your file system to
ensure that flushes are performed to nonvolatile storage in a synchronous
manner."

(http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/tivihelp/v1r1/topic/com.ibm.itsmai
xn.doc/anragd5582.htm#disksub1020)

Anyone else seen anything else that addresses NFS support specifically?

//DMc

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Richard Rhodes
Sent: 04 August 2010 12:27
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] FILE Device class over NFS

We don't do this . . .we don't even have a DD (or any other dedup system).
But my team lead went to a TSM users group meeting were she found several
companies doing NFS to a DD.








             bkupmstr
             <tsm-forum@BACKUP
             CENTRAL.COM>                                               To
             Sent by: "ADSM:           ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
             Dist Stor                                                  cc
             Manager"
             <[email protected]                                     Subject
             .EDU>                     FILE Device class over NFS


             08/04/2010 12:20
             AM


             Please respond to
             [email protected].
                    EDU






Ever get an answer to this one Dale.

I guess it wouldn't bode to well for DD if IBM came right out and stated
that they don't support it?

Hmm

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by bkupmstr AT yahoo DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------