>The organization that I work for deploys TSM quite >sucessfully at its large main sites that serve some >+4000 nodes. It is very apparent that TSM scales >upwardly very well but I believe that scaling down is >something else. MY question is this:How can similar >services be delivered to sites where there are less >than ten nodes, limited bandwidth, no system >administrators and, most importantly, tiny budgets.
It's not realistic to have server systems of any kind at a site where there is no technical administration: someone has to be knowledgeable about the systems in order to minimally inspect them visually when there is a problem. Clerical people simply can't serve in that capacity. Remote administration is a feasible concept, but when hardware stops working, knowledgable eyes and experienced hands must be at the site. Such a responsibility might be contracted to an outside company, which can feasibly attend to disparate physical sites. Consider also that while unattended backup, by various means by products of different scales, is not difficult, the backups are done because of the prospect of the need for a restoral, which can involve a full-down computer, and that is beyond the capabilities of clerical people to address: someone has to know what to do, particularly where a collection of office computers will seldom be uniform. TSM is an enterprise product, intended for larger installations, which is to say those where there are concentrated server facilities and network access. As Wanda suggests, backup by remote offices over a WAN is the method of choice where TSM or like backup/restore product are involved. Again, the backup is easy, but restoral can be problematic. Advanced planning is necessary to cover all aspects of backup/restoral needs, which in turn is just a part of a company's larger disaster recovery plan. Richard Sims, BU