as anything but bs.
Russell Witt
CA-1 Level-2 Support Manager
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Virtual tape limits (Was: OEM software electronic
On May 18, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Russell Witt wrote:
Oh Ed, wrong again like so often.
With encryption you MUST have an encryption key. I know you would
feel safer
having written on a piece of paper you carry with you in your
wallet. But to
most modern data centers, writing encryption keys or
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:47:49 -0500, Russell Witt wrote:
Actually, CA announced last February at Share that both CA-Vtape and CA
Tape Encryption will be using the zIIP (if available) for both compression and
encryption. So, while a zIIP is not free; it is much cheaper then main CPU
cycles.
On May 17, 2007, at 6:18 AM, Russell Witt wrote:
Oh come on Ed,
How many thousands of sites trust CA-1 and TLMS to protect their
tape datasets? And you do NOT hear any oops, I lost my backup
stories from them, do you.
Ahhh but the tapes aren't encrypted with those products they are
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Shane,
Wintel solution? Who mentioned a Wintel solution?
The software runs on Mainframe. The virtualization of SATA is handled by a
USP.
How much more robust can the HW and SW be?
[...]
So, I have to buy USP (I like USP, but like the *choice* more), then I have to buy some
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 05:25 +0800, Ron Hawkins wrote:
Wintel solution? Who mentioned a Wintel solution?
First paragraph of your reference link;
Virtual Tape Library Solutions by Hitachi Data Systems enables storage
managers to obtain all the benefits of backing up to disk without
changing
Hmmm, when did z/series and s/390 stop being servers?
Did you assume... :-)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shane
Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2007 5:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Virtual tape limits (Was: OEM
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:26 +0800, Ron Hawkins wrote:
Hmmm, when did z/series and s/390 stop being servers?
Did you assume... :-)
Where-ever did you get that idea ???.
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
]
Date: 2007/05/15 Tue AM 06:29:13 CDT
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Virtual tape limits (Was: OEM software electronic download report
card)
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Mark,
A few problems I see with this article:
1) They purchased the tape libraries based on 2:1 compression and the SATA
Mark Zelden wrote:
[...]
I don't know the actual numbers, but I am going by how many MVCs we send
off site each day and how full they are.
Do you physically move MVCs offsite ???
Why?
I thought, you told us all your data is replicated using VSM Clustering.
So, why to move any physical cart ?
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Virtual tape limits (Was: OEM software electronic download
report card)
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Mark,
A few problems I see with this article:
1) They purchased the tape libraries based on 2:1 compression and the
SATA
with zero compression. Virtual
On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:51:20 +0200, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Zelden wrote:
[...]
I don't know the actual numbers, but I am going by how many MVCs we send
off site each day and how full they are.
Do you physically move MVCs offsite ???
Why?
I thought, you told us all your data is
In a message dated 5/15/2007 8:25:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the end of this year. Unfortunately at the moment we still work with
PTAM (Pickup Truck Access Method).
Don't the Feds/auditors enforce BPTAM(Bonded PTAM)?
-- snip --
BTW: Even without clustering it is not necessary to move MVCs, since you
can write VTVs on two MVCs in two ACSes (in two locations).
Correct. We are looking at doing one of the two methods hopefully by
the end of this year. Unfortunately at the moment we still work with
PTAM
Shane,
Wintel solution? Who mentioned a Wintel solution?
The software runs on Mainframe. The virtualization of SATA is handled by a
USP.
How much more robust can the HW and SW be?
I've seen some pretty crummy CPU usage from DFHSM in TMM environments. Part
of that is because DFHSM and DSS do
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 11:16 +0200, John Ticic wrote:
BTW. What are your plans (Shane/Mark) for migrating to VTCS 6.2.
Specifically, how long do you plan to wait before installing the new
software?
Not my call - I have mentioned it to my customer.
Once the decision to order it is made, I
John Ticic wrote:
[...]
VSM (and VTS) offer simple, application independent duplication for
disaster recovery purposes. When you change jobs from using virtual tapes
to real tapes you have to look at how you're going to duplicate the tapes.
It's one reason to try to keep all your tapes virtual.
-- snip --
VSM (and VTS) offer simple, application independent duplication for
disaster recovery purposes. When you change jobs from using virtual tapes
to real tapes you have to look at how you're going to duplicate the
tapes.
It's one reason to try to keep all your tapes virtual.
[...]
It's
On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:16:32 +0200, John Ticic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
Just ran into that. Things that large should be on physical tape (if you
have it). We ran a report of dsns with more than 20 volsers and are
just about all of them were from DB2 and jobs created by the same
Mark Zelden wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:16:32 +0200, John Ticic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
Just ran into that. Things that large should be on physical tape (if you
have it). We ran a report of dsns with more than 20 volsers and are
just about all of them were from DB2 and jobs
On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:26:48 +0200, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it's safe, convenient, error-proof, but EXPENSIVE.
Yes... it has a cost. As I said, the cost of duplexing test data is probably
a nit. For production, yes we are duplexing things that *may* not be
needed for DR (but who
John,
Not only are Enterprise disk prices coming down, but virtualization gives
z/OS shops access to Midrange disk drives which have a much lower unit cost.
That's one of the reasons why HDS have gone into the Virtual Tape business
with VTF
Hate to interrupt with a question; this is a good thread going.
The 3590 are getting hugeHowever, What are MVCs?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Zelden
But the other benefit (and part of the reasoning behind it and
: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Virtual tape limits (Was: OEM software electronic download
report card)
Hate to interrupt with a question; this is a good thread going.
The 3590 are getting hugeHowever, What are MVCs?
-Original Message-
From: IBM
It's one reason to try to keep all your tapes virtual.
It's a small trade off for simplifying the
management of the environment (which is very large) and guaranteeing
to the business that we will have all the tape data in a disaster.
Well, it's safe, convenient, error-proof, but EXPENSIVE.
Hate to interrupt with a question; this is a good thread going.
The 3590 are getting hugeHowever, What are MVCs?
MVCs are the same as IBM stacked volumes. Backend tapes for the Sun/Stk
VSM.
MVC= Multi Volume Cartridge.
John Benik
This e-mail, including attachments, may include
It's one reason to try to keep all your tapes virtual.
It's a small trade off for simplifying the
management of the environment (which is very large) and guaranteeing
to the business that we will have all the tape data in a disaster.
Well, it's safe, convenient, error-proof, but
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:30:02 -0500, Jeffrey Deaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both will mirror the data on the back end for BCP purposes. Why even keep
the RTDs? This stuff is inexpensive enough to keep all the tape data on
spinning disk and fully mirrored. We're seriously thinking about it.
This customer has around 5 Petabytes of tape data.
Yeah - That would be 320 of the Thumper devices just to house the primary
copy. So the scale is good for little old us, but certainly not everyone.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer
Systems Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
651-665-4231(v)
651-610-7670(p)
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:30:02 -0500, Jeffrey Deaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why even keep
the RTDs? This stuff is inexpensive enough to keep all the tape data on
spinning disk and fully mirrored. We're seriously thinking about it.
Probably works for us better than most, however, since we
On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:35:24 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
An interesting article on this subject:
Tape and Disk Costs - What It really Costs to Power the Equipment
http://www.clipper.com/research/TCG2007014.pdf
From the article:
Key Findings
1. SATA disk system has nearly 26 times higher energy
So at that point the extra cost (beyond in-house recovery) is shipping the
duplex MVCs off site and storing them,
We found an easy way to store them, in a previous life.
Both sites has two libraries.
Production, and the back-up from the other site.
(GDPS).
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Mark,
A few problems I see with this article:
1) They purchased the tape libraries based on 2:1 compression and the SATA
with zero compression. Virtual tape software will compress the data on disk
at the same rate as tape.
2) Where did they get this disk storage from? The whole 1st year
33 matches
Mail list logo
