In regard to: Re: [Networker] Query in Staging from adv_file, steve...: Your low opinion of the product is irrelevant, you may have your own issues with NetWorker, this does not mean that it is a les
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:47:50 -0400
If only there was a site dedicated completely to backup, where there was a forum _and_ mailing list dedicated to general backup discussions.... It would be, like, a CENTRAL place to discuss backup is
Author: Will Aymond <Wilbur.Aymond AT SHELL DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:21:01 -0500
For the sake of humor here... I like the comparison of TSM to a luxury car... Breaks down often, expensive to maintain, and consumes a ton of resources... -I'm more of a Mercedes guy myself.. ;-) I'l
In regard to: RE: [Networker] Query in Staging from adv_file, Curtis...: Tim Mooney said: I would say let them do it somewhere else. Take it to a "general enterprise backup list". Let the religious w
I'm just a subscriber with an opinion, though, and you know what opinions are like. ;-) Ultimately, it's up to Temple and Stan to determine how broad the scope is for the list. I guess that's my queu
Getting back to the subject at hand, one thing confuses me about using an ADVFS. We have a Sun X4500 with Solaris 10 as a storage node that's fibre channeled into a large tape library that's shared
Author: Peter Viertel <Peter.Viertel AT MACQUARIE DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:36:45 +1000
well I suppose that S stands for super then... :-) So SAIT-1 ... I looked that up and the native transfer speed is 30MB/sec, so 45MB/s sounds valid... 70-90 sounds like compressible data - so maybe t
well I suppose that S stands for super then... :-) So SAIT-1 ... I looked that up and the native transfer speed is 30MB/sec, so 45MB/s sounds valid... 70-90 sounds like compressible data - so maybe
Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:46:37 -0400
am I wrong in assuming that one can never recover data from an ADVFS while its busy staging data to tape, or have I misconfigured this set-up? Stan, As currently implemented, you are correct. A stage
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:39:22 -0400
Hmmm... VTLs don't have that problem. ;) OK, they sort of do. You can't restore from a tape that's currently being cloned, but you can restore from other tapes. It looks like the entire AFTD is held
As currently implemented, you are correct. A stage or a clone or multiple recovers may be performed on the AFTD. If a stage is running, clones and recovers have to wait for it to complete. Hmmm... V
Author: Terry Lemons <lemons_terry AT EMC DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:59:13 -0400
Hi Stan It's true that the autochanger license is based on slot count, not tape device count. But the dynamic drive sharing license is per drive (at least, it was when I checked several years ago; pl
Hi Stan I don't think device count is relevant in a NetWorker environment because EMC doesn't license anything based on device count. It's true that the autochanger license is based on slot count, n
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:04:13 -0400
That's not entirely true. First, there are versions of NetWorker where you're only allowed to have a certain number of devices (e.g. 4 tape drives). Second, there is Network Edition and Power Editio
Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:28:47 -0400
As currently implemented, you are correct. A stage or a clone or multiple recovers may be performed on the AFTD. If a stage is running, clones and recovers have to wait for it to complete. Hmmm... V
Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:30:55 -0400
On 8/21/08 2:55 PM, Stan Horwitz wrote: I don't think device count is relevant in a NetWorker environment because EMC doesn't license anything based on device count. What I am starting to see is that
Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:33:01 -0400
It's true that the autochanger license is based on slot count, not tape device count. But the dynamic drive sharing license is per drive (at least, it was when I checked several years ago; please cor
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:17:08 -0400
backups to the AFTD. Not true. You just can't back up to the same TAPE at the same time. But if you fire off a backup, it'll get a tape, even if the one it prefers is busy. And if a particular tape I
Author: Will Aymond <Wilbur.Aymond AT SHELL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:47:29 -0500
Not to stir up trouble here, and perhaps I should have started another thread entirely, but all of this talk about VTL had me thinking... VTL: Why? Who ever thought emulating a device was a good idea
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:11:11 -0400
Oooh. This is fun. Let's not change the thread, as I'd like to keep the discussion going all in one thread. It gives you the benefits of tape without the drawbacks. Most of my arguments have to do wi