=> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:42:14 -0600, "Coats, Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> From my fox hole, LTO works great, but in some ways it is 'to big'. The > spin time on the tapes is measured as about 3 minutes to rewind and unmount > a tape. Meaning if you have to scan down a tape to restore a file it can be > a while. Very fast tapes tend to be small, so it is a real tradeoff. > Speed of restore is starting to be a factor here and I have seen several > posts where that is becoming more of an issue at many sites. But the > architecture of TSM that makes it great, also gets in the way of high speed > restores, unless you have lots of slots in a large library for a relatively > small number of clients (co-location and/or backup sets - for theses many > smaller tapes might be better, but I digress). Our call on this is congealing: Use the LTO for less-often-read storage. i.e.: copy pools. If we can have primary pools on 3590s, we can get up to 60G raw on the -K volumes. That seems plenty at the moment. We can use the 200G-raw (coming soon!) LTO volumes for copies, and read from them correspondingly less often. LTO drives are, at the very least, a cheap way to increase your drive count. - Allen S. Rout
