> >>> It's one reason to try to keep all your tapes virtual. >
> >> It's a small trade off for simplifying the > >> management of the environment (which is very large) and guaranteeing > >> to the business that we will have all the tape data in a disaster. > > >Well, it's safe, convenient, error-proof, but EXPENSIVE. > > It doesn't have to be expensive. Seen this? > http://www.luminex.com/products/channel_gateway/firex4500.htm > Or this? > http://www.bustech.com/products/mainframe-data-library.asp > > Both will mirror the data on the back end for BCP purposes. Why even keep > the RTDs? This stuff is inexpensive enough to keep all the tape data on > spinning disk and fully mirrored. We're seriously thinking about it. > Probably works for us better than most, however, since we made a concerted > effort over the last decade to keep people from using tape. So its mainly > just HSM and DB images at this point and its under 25TB of data. This customer has around 5 Petabytes of tape data. That's a lot of DASD - even with todays price per gigabyte. Some data typically needs to be kept for 10 years (or longer). I think tapes will still be around for a while yet. John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
