I'm not sure of the true concern with this ? I'm using LTO-4 and yes my tapes that I perform DB backups on are 90%-95% empty afterwards. But to ensure recoverability I can live with that.
Also the concern of "expensive" tapes over cheaper lower capacity is relative. "Back in the day" we used lower capacity tapes that were state of the art but also the same price as the current technology. Yes you can back up a TSM DB on one tape without too much left over capacity, but is it really that important in the long run ? I'll get off my soapbox now. Have good day everyone. -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Remco Post Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dear Tuscon On 20 mrt 2009, at 15:39, Nick Laflamme wrote: > My heart leapt when my RSS reader presented me an article in the TSM > udpates feed from IBM with the heading, "Keeping more than one TSM > server database backup on a tape." As I'm implementing a new server > using 3592 drives, I haven't been happy with my options for this > particular issue. Maybe, I thought, I was about to learn something of > immediate use and high value! > > My heart sank when I read the actual article, which might be > paraphrased as, "Sorry, Charlie, too risky." > > Back to asking for some LTO drives just for small, inexpensive tapes > for DB backups. I had a discussion with IBM development on this subject just a few months ago in the context of the TSM 6.1 beta program. That person at that time agreed with me that given current tape capacities, having multiple db backups on one tape might make sense. This doesn't mean that this is in 6.1 or even on the roadmap, but it does mean that the door isn't completely closed either. We'll probably only find out if IBM decides to follow up on the suggestion.... -- Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind regards, Remco Post [email protected]
