ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] TSM policy

2011-06-22 15:15:51
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM policy
From: "Lee, Gary D." <GLEE AT BSU DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:13:07 -0400
Remember verexists and verdel also work in days.
 


Gary Lee
Senior System Programmer
Ball State University
phone: 765-285-1310

 
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
ritchi64
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:06 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM policy

Thank's everyone for your reply, it help me a lot.

Wanda hit exactly the sensitive spot. The organisation don't want to spend a 
lot of time and money to look after many user type, different need in data 
protection. And, I know very well if, I ask the majority of Recerche kind of 
users, what they want, it could mean opening the pandora box. It could also 
mean to adapt the electronic data to the paper conservation rules ask by 
ressource department.

That said, I like what Gary wrote. One new node name for short retention and 
keep original node name for long term. I don't think I will want to use the TSM 
archive. I use that option when I can remove the original file from disk. I 
think it will use less space if we do a monthly incremental with verexists=12, 
verdel=12, retextra=362 and retonly=362 (or more depending of exceptional 
client request)

Comment's ?

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>