How many TB of data is common in this configuration? In a large environment, 
where databases are 5-10TB each and you have a demand to backup 5-10-15-20TB of 
data each night, this would require you to have 10Gbs for every host, something 
that would also cost a penny. Especially since the DD needs to be configured to 
have the throughput to write all those TB within a limited amount of time.
 
Does the DD do de-dup within the same box (meaning, can I have 1 box that 
handles normal storage and does de-dup) or do I need a 2nd box?
 
And the same issue also arises with the filepool, you're moving alot of data 
around completely unnecessary every day when u do reclaim. 
 
If I'm right, it also sounds like (in your description from the previous mails) 
you're not only using the DD for TSM storage. That sounds like putting all the 
eggs in the same basket.
 
Best Regards
 
Daniel



Daniel Sparrman
Exist i Stockholm AB
Växel: 08-754 98 00
Fax: 08-754 97 30
daniel.sparrman AT exist DOT se
http://www.existgruppen.se
Posthusgatan 1 761 30 NORRTÄLJE



-----"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> skrev: -----


Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Från: "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>
Sänt av: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Datum: 09/27/2011 18:55
Ärende: 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