John, <snip>
> > Umm, 1-2GB/sec of DASD to Tape, that fast. Can you point me to a > reference for this? I had been under the impression that most tape > units can only do 30-60MB ps. IBM and Sun do have tape units that can > do about 100MBps. I have several. My favourite is handling video for a casino. There are 800+ cameras feeding 200 DVR. Every 15 minutes the DVR will dump their contents to disk, and those disk files must be backed up to tape before the 15 minutes is over. This was two years ago, but if throughput fell below 1.2GB/sec the whole process would fall apart. I just had a new request last week for backup to run at 1.6GB/sec without affecting OLTP at 25% of peak OLTP load (25000 IOPS) while doing two way remote copy in a 30% cache hit workload. And this is in a 3rd world country! > > > > I guess I was not clear. The 10 drive library was part of my example > about backup up a single table space that is partitioned into 10 > partitions can be backup concurrently. It was "as400" that had the > multi-million dollar VTS and I have no idea how many tapes drives where > in that unit. > > I would assume that if it cost a million dollars from IBM that the same > type of VTS would cost about million dollars from somebody else. Ask Felix Unger about assume! > > If a VTS is not supposed to save money due to staffing and time, then > why get one? You're asking the wrong person here. I am a confessed TMM bigot, and I fail to see why Mainframe sites would go VTS when TMM is so much faster, simpler and easier. Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
