Thanks for all the input. We will be meeting to discuss the solutions mentioned after Jan 5, 2009.
We will probably use the zOS solution since TSM is a proven commodity for server backups. Once we have a working solution we may investigate the others. The key is to get something that works asap. -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Backup Restore recommendations On 1/2/09 7:37 AM, "Harder, Pieter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> ....but TSM tape >> handling on Linux is so awful and idiosyncratic (not to mention the idiotic >> fact that TSM for Linux cannot use channel-attached tape) that the price of >> the extra CPU is probably worth it. > > I respectfully disagree. I found FCP-based LTO libraries better behaved than > our old 3494. And before you ask, I do come from WDSF (aka ADSM V1) and ADSM > V2 and originally bought the 3494 with 3590 for the purpose. The price of the > extra CPU (and licenses) on z/OS will probably outweigh what you pay for a > decent library. We currently run a two IFL TSM and I don't care to think what > that would cost me on z/OS. We would have long ago lost the installation to > our decentral server group. Good points, but I'd observe that the small incremental price of the additional tape libraries doesn't take into account all the additional costs of actually managing the additional libraries at scale. The cost of creating a new set of operational procedures, having your tape librarians deal with an additional (and incompatible) set of tape technology, and the additional complexity of recovery if you have achieved a high level of automation with the z/OS side is non-trivial, and if you include those costs in the assessment, then the cost case for TSM on Linux is a lot less compelling than otherwise. People are the expensive part of this equation, and the TSM on Linux solution uses a lot more people resources to manage than the z/OS version. I've seen a number of TSM implementatins where the difference was fairly slight after all the additional costs for management were added in. Now, if z/OS ever learns to handle FCP devices or Linux actually acquires a decent storage management capability (watch this space...8-)).... (God, it must be a new year. I'm actually arguing *for* a z/OS-based solution. I guess I can always claim temporary insanity. 8-)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
