ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool

2011-09-27 14:56:58
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool
From: "Prather, Wanda" <wPrather AT ICFI DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:13:41 +0000
I didn't think Sanergy was still supported?

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Robert Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:39 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool

By LANFree, you mean LAN Free to disk?

last time I looked at it, Sanergy was NFS for UNIX hosts, and CIFS for Windows. 
(So if you have both platforms in your environment, you needed two setups.)

If you used NFS for the front-end semantics, you still had some range-based 
locking for the shared disk accessed over the SAN. The presence of the SAN disk 
and the Sanergy special sauce made this solution "LAN Free".

If you're just talking about using NFS as a storage target for a storage agent, 
then that is something else. Unless you're running TCP/IP over your FC 
switches, that NFS traffic is going over the LAN. If the data traffic flows 
over the LAN, that isn't LAN Free.

Thanks,
[RC]




From:   Rick Adamson <RickAdamson AT WINN-DIXIE DOT COM>
To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date:   09/27/2011 10:28 AM
Subject:        Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for
pirmary pool
Sent by:        "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>



Sorry, By not supported I meant for lan-free. Every bit of documents I've read 
only refer to using a physical or virtual tape library.


~Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Allen S. Rout
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:55 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool

On 09/27/2011 12:02 PM, Rick Adamson wrote:


> The bigger question I have is since the file based storage is
 > native to TSM why exactly is using a file based storage  > not supported?

Not supported by what?

If you've got a DD, then the simplest way to connect it to TSM is via files.  
Some backup apps require something that looks like a library, in which case 
you'd be buying the VTL license.

FWIW, if you're already in DD space, you're paying a pretty penny.  The VTL 
license isn't chicken feed, I agree, but it's not a major component of the 
total cost.


- Allen S. Rout


U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains 
information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy 
laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from 
retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this 
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have 
received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you 
in advance for your cooperation.



---------------------------------------------------------------------

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