I am not understanding the crucial advantage(s) of using virtual volumes to backup a data center to a remote site. Why not backup nodes in a remote data center to a TSM server in a local data center?
We have two data centers about 60 miles apart. If we backup nodes in one data center directly to a TSM server in the other the TSM architecture is simpler, cheaper and familiar. If we lost the remote data center, we could restore its TSM nodes to hardware in the local data center thanks to the TSM server already there since it contains all the needed metadata. No TSM server build or database restore is required. It may be worth mentioning that we are already backing up a few remote nodes to a local TSM server with communication speeds in the range of other, local backups. If we build the virtual volume architecture on the other hand, we must purchase, build, and maintain at a distance a second server in each data center to connect the tape library there to the TSM server in the other data center. If we lose a data center under the virtual volume plan, its TSM server and primary disk pool will be lost along with everything else. All our eggs will be in one basket. We would need to restore the lost TSM server in the other data center before we could restore anything else. What unique advantage do virtual volumes provide that will repay the extra expense, work, and vulnerability? Finally, why must backup objects be archive objects for the virtual volume architecture to work. What forces that, and what else does it imply? With many thanks, Keith Arbogast Indiana University