Hi Luc!
You are talking about full volumes restore. Are planning to use the LTO
library for your copy pool? If so, LTO is very usable. Since a volume
restore is typically a streaming process, your volume restores will be quite
fast. LTO for a primary tape pool will be quite a different story. Indeed
the LTO start/stop characteristics are something to take in consideration.
Data on a 100 GB. volume can (and will) be scattered across the tape, so
when you are restoring a lot of data, you will see long seek times. We
choose for 3590 over LTO for this reason.
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
-----Original Message-----
From: Verellen, Luc [NCSBE] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 16:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LTO versus 3590
Hello,
We're in the process of configuring a new TSM server in an offsite location,
and we need to decide on the tape technology that we're going to use.
Some information on our backup mechanism : we do use collocation, and use
incremental forever (we never take full backups). Some of our file servers
are huge, and contain 500.000 - 1.000.000 files.
LTO seems to be a very good solution (data rate, capacity,...) but I am
afraid that the "streaming" effect (instead of the 3590 start/stop) will
cause full volume restores to take forever.
Is there anyone who want to share some information on the tradeoff between
start/stop and streaming versus price?
Thanks, Luc.
Luc Verellen
Johnson & Johnson
Beerse/Belgium
**********************************************************************
This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that
no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and
that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and
may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart
Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for
the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor
responsible for any delay in receipt.
**********************************************************************
