Like I said in my previous mail, it all depends on the size of you're TSM
server. Transfering (and storing) smaller amounts of data across the network is
one thing, but when u sit there with your 10TB DB2 server that needs to have a
full backup at least 2-3 days a week, transfering it across the network will
never be an option compared to using LAN-free.
The size and cost of the DD to be able to handle that kind of load would never
be justified just by using it as TSM storage, which would put you in a
situation where the DD is bought for multiple use (filer, backup and so forth).
That means you're putting your only lifeline (the backup) in the same box as
your primary storage (filers, databases). That's a risky situation, considering
what would happen if the box fails.
In my opionion, TSM storage should be quarantened, since if you're primary
storage fails, TSM is what's gonna bring you back on track.
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: "Prather, Wanda" <wPrather AT ICFI DOT COM>
Sänt av: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Datum: 09/28/2011 00:06
Ärende: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file
systems for pirmary pool
Actually I have more customers using Data Domains without the VTL license than
with it.
With a Windows TSM server, you can just write to it via TCP/IP using a CIFS
share(NFS mount with an AIX TSM server).
If you have sufficient TCP/IP bandwidth for your load, no fibre connections
needed.
>From the TSM point of view, you configure it as a file pool.
You get the benefits of dedup and (if you have a 2nd one at your DR site)
replication.
Neither good or bad, just different.
Very simple setup, works great if it meets your throughput requirements.
W
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Daniel Sparrman
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:49 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems
for pirmary pool
The fact you actually need to pay a "VTL license" is just plain scary.
When u bought it, did they think you're gonna use it as a fileserver? I'm not
to specialized into Data Domain, but arent they marketed as backup hardware? So
you get a disk, but if you want to use it for something else than that, you
need to pay a license?
Sorry for sounding bitter, but I've always heard people referring to Data
Domain as a VTL.
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
|
