From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Lundstedt >I am just trying to consider all the pros/cons of having multiple copy >storage pools per primary pool. I was considering having one >copy storage >pool that never gets taken offsite (remains in the library), >and two copy >pools that get checked out and set to "offsite". Obviously, >the pros are >that, in the event of a disaster, you have multiple offsite >storage pools >offsite, and volumes that are destroyed, damaged, or lost in transit to >your recovery center are duplicated in the storage pool set >that remained >offsite. Additionally, the onsite copy storage pool can be used to >restore damaged primary storage pool tapes.
Con #1: You are trying to cover a triple failure--the failure of the client, the failure of the primary pool tape(s), and the failure of the first offsite tape pool tape(s). I daresay that no one reading this list has ever run across the need for that much coverage in a system that is properly maintained and monitored. Con #2: (At least) 1/3 more space reclamation and storage pool backup resources needed Con #3: (At least) 1/3 more money spent on media, and the handling thereof I just don't see the need. In this professional's opinion, that is spending far too many resources to cover eventualities that will never see the light of day. As I have commented before, in the 11+ years I have dealt with ADSM/TSM, I have not experienced a single byte of data loss in a system that has at least one properly maintained primary pool and one copy pool. -- Mark Stapleton
