Tom:
are we talking a real network or hipersockets for LPAR's or VM?
I am in the process of implementing Amanda for 4xLPAR's running zLinux with
a zOS NFS Mount Point where HSM does the heavy lifting with the Tape
Drives. We are also in the process of switching HSM to use our Virtual
Tape System (STK). No tape drives are used in our zLinux environment
(don't need to).
Depending on contention, I will use dedicated hipersockets for general
purpose applications and a set of hipersockets for system applications.
we run something similar to Amanda for our Open System over a real network
with one server doing all of the server functions (dedicated). We set up a
parallel IP network just for the purpose of backups (IP).
We are also looking into a parallel SAN network for serverless backups.
I agree, I would not want to be on general IP network for my backups.
Regards,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NCCI
Boca Raton, Florida
561.893.2415
greetings / avec mes meilleures salutations / Cordialmente
mit freundlichen Gr��en / Med v�nlig h�lsning
Tom Duerbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[email protected]
net> cc:
Sent by: Linux on Subject: Re: Amanda for backups
390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
06/09/2005 02:24
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
Thanks
The kind of stuff I was looking for.
Being old, I do not favor transmitting data over communications. It
usually is higher overhead then transmission over hardware.
i.e. transmission over IP, to get to escon-tape, instead of just
writting to tape.
And that got reinforced with my experiences with real LAN systems. I
would be trying to fix a mainframe problem, by dialing into an IP
connection, and find I can't get anything done because the LAN people
are backing up servers over the LAN. So either the mainframe sat, or I
had to come in for a coax session. In this case, I finally talked a LAN
guy to come in at midnight - 1 AM and check the network performance.
The light-weight tools he had showed collisions being 90+ percent of the
transmissions.
No wonder it seemed that I never got any tn3270 packets.
But it took them 2 years to do anything about it, so I'm still really
negative about using communications to do transfers. But Ill get over
it, eventually.
Like I said, the more I read about Amanda, the more I want to use it the
way it was ment to be.
But I'm still not convinced that Amanda is/will be our backup solution.
TSM initially sounded good, but it required scsi attached tape drives
(i.e. FCP attached), and at this point, I don't want to have separate
FICON and FCP attached tape drives. Right now, due to cost and I don't
perceive the need. In a year or two, that may change.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
David Boyes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:54:38PM -0500, Tom Duerbusch wrote:
>
>>Using Amanda in a traditional network world, Amanda would be running on
>>a server with tape drives and the clients will be running on other
>>images and the backups are taken over the network. Sure, saves on tape
>>drives.
>>But on a mainframe, each image can own the tape drives.
>>I'm wondering (pros and cons) if anyone has made every Linux image, an
>>Amanda server and just back up its self. No network envolved. It seems
>>like it would be more efficient, but then....I think there would be a
>>lot of unknowns of how things work when you actually need something
>>restored (or your image rebuilt).
>
>
> You could do it this way, but part of the convenience of tools like
> Amanda is that that Amanda database keeps track of what file is on
> what tape -- and if everybody's doing their own backups to a database
> in the same server, it's a real PITA if that server gets destroyed and
> the Amanda database goes with it.
>
> That's kind of the point of the client/server model; the client
> servers don't need to retain all that state information, the server is
> the only place you need to worry about it. Recovery is a lot easier in
> that scenario: you just need to restore the Amanda server, and then
> restore everything else from that image. If you separate the backup
> server from the clients you can also shut it down and get a absolutely
> clean image backup of it with DDR or similar tools w/o interrupting
> production work.
>
> Third, you'd have to do all the TMS and tape management integration
> for every server. Getting tape drives on and offline to Linux is still
> a PITA, even if you use the tape mount widget we wrote. Do you really
> want to have to do all that work for every guest when you can create
> private LAN segments with one command?
>
>
>>Or maybe Amanda just won't run this way.
>
>
> It will. It's just a lot more work to do it that way for no real
> benefit.
>
> -- db
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit
> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and
as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
