---------------------------- Top of message ---------------------------- >>--> 10-31-01 08:20 S.SHEPPARD (SHS) Re: 3494+VTS+TSM
Not sure who 'they' are, but if you are not CPU constrained, using OS/390 as the TSM server is certainly not a 'bad idea', although using the VTS could be. This list has a flood of posts concerning all manner of problems and questions concerning other servers and various ATLs including the 3494, NONE of which are of any concern on the OS/390 server, given the robust tape management in the RMM component. Sam Sheppard San Diego Data Processing Corp. (858)-581-9668 -----------------------------------------------------------------------` ---------------------------- Top of message ---------------------------- >>--> 10-30-01 18:24 ..NETMAIL (001) Re: 3494+VTS+TSM Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:59:38 -0500 From: "Seay, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 3494+VTS+TSM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________Top_of_Message_________________________________ OK, Bad idea to use the OS/390 as the TSM Server is what they are saying and also not a good idea to use a VTS because TSM fills tapes up. Typically, users install the OS/390 version and eventually move to AIX. Now, the idea of sharing your 3494 with a AIX TSM server and install some 3590 drives is a good idea. And if you are small enough you may be able to get by with a W2K server. We run both. The 3494 support is not going away for a long time. IBM is installing a lot of 3494s in the open systems world at customer sites that do not believe Ultrim is ready for prime time. They just installed 2 in our area last week. There is no follow on product announced. We have 2 3494s with HA, a total of 38 open systems 3590E drives, 1 VTS, and 20 S/390 drives. I have presented numerous times of how to implement this kind of configuration in a multi-vendor environment on AIX, SUN, S/390, W2K, and SGI. It works great. We actually have both Netbackup and TSM, 28TB of Shark storage. I will be presenting again on this subject at Share in Nashville. Your skittishness because of the 3466 debacle has merit, but it does not apply here, at least for 5 years. -----Original Message----- From: Mahesh Tailor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3494+VTS+TSM Hello, all! I am not a 3494 expert, so please forgive my ignorance in the way I refer to this platform. We have a 3494 VTS system/library installed that is currently being used by our OS/390 mainframe for its backups. I would like to know if it is possible for me have TSM utilize this system for it's storage also? Is there any good documentation about how to do this? Also, I spoke with our Tivoli TSM marketing specialist about this and was told, in fairly certain terms, that this was a **BAD** idea because of two reasons: 1) BAD performance 2) the same thing that happened to the 3466 (i.e. Tivoli does not recognize it or support it as a true TSM platform) IS GOING to happen to the 3494 system, since it is also somewhat based on the same concept and that if we implement this, we were almost sure to lose support from Tivoli in the near future. BTW, one reason I ask is that I have a 3466 and am having a hell of a time getting support for this platfrom ever since Tivoli inherited ADSM/TSM and given the strong word of caution from a TSM person at Tivoli, I am reluctant to proceeed with the 3494 integration and upgrade. Can anyone tell me whether any of this is true and lay my fears to rest? In case you don't feel comfortable emaling the list, please send me a message directly and I will ensure that your email stays confidential. TIA Mahesh Tailor WAN/NetView/TSM Administrator Carilion Health System Voice: 540-224-3929 Fax: 540-224-3954 -----------------------------------------------------------------------`
