For example, having an exchange pool and a file server pool (and so on) allows 
us to back up two very large servers to two different tapes (and drives) at the 
same time.
Erik



-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]On Behalf Of A Darren
Dunham
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:30 PM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:52:29AM -0500, erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT 
com wrote:
> We are using approx 15 volume pools for several reasons.
>
> Having many pools allows us to restore different pools simultaneously
> at our DR facility, getting the maximum results within our window.

I assume it's the fact that your different images are on different tapes
that is helping you, not the specific fact that you have muliple volume
pools.  Is that correct?

If so, you might be able to use different retention levels for your
backups instead of different storage pools.  It would be annoying, but
you have 25 different retention levels possible.

> This is also the case for backing up the data.  Different media
> servers having their own pools is really efficient.  We have a
> specific backup window that might be hard to accomplish without using
> pools.

I don't understand that point.  How do the pools help on that end?  Even
if you only had one pool, why would backups go slower?

--
Darren
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu