Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM
Hi *SM-ers! We are about to implement a second (fallback) IT center on another location. The idea is to create a hot standby environment for TSM. We are already using a separate copypool which will be moved to the new remote location, so if the primary pool gets lost, we have all data (up until

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Allen S. Rout
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:17:17 +0200, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: We are about to implement a second (fallback) IT center on another location. The idea is to create a hot standby environment for TSM. We are already using a separate copypool which will be moved to the new

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Allen S. Rout
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:17:17 +0200, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The only thing I could think of is creating a standby library which can be connected in case of a disaster to host the new primary pool and start all over with backing up. A waste of money because it will

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Prather, Wanda
Hi Eric, In a disaster, you mark your primary pool volumes destroyed, but they are still in your DB, along with all the appropriate file entries. If you start backing up again, TSM just continues doing incrementals, because the DB tells it the older files were already backed up. To rebuild your

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM
Hi Allen! Thank you very much for your reaction! Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you cannot backup to a copypool. Am I wrong here? I cannot wait for the restore storagepool to finish... This will take days and I will have to be able to make client backups immediately. If I was able

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Kelly Martin
On 9/1/06, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Allen! Thank you very much for your reaction! Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you cannot backup to a copypool. Am I wrong here? I cannot wait for the restore storagepool to finish... This will take days and I will have

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Len Boyle
Hello Eric, You will only require scratch tapes in the primary pool or that TSM can move into the primary pool to do backups. TSM really does not think of working with tape-sets, it thinks of working with data. If all your primary storage media is wiped out and you have your copypool data.

TSM server on Linux x86 64 bit

2006-09-01 Thread David Longo
What are experiences with running TSM server on Linux x86 box? Mgmnt here wants to go that way to save dollars. Currently have on AIX on a p660-6H1 with 4GB RAM and 4x 750 MHz procs. 3584 library FC attached with 14 LTO 23 drives. Backup from 450+ servers about 2 TB per day and make offsite

missed backups oddity

2006-09-01 Thread Gill, Geoffrey L.
The background on this is that this server, AIX 5.3, TSM 5.2.6.1, has been running smoothly forever. Max Scheduled sessions is set to 64, total number of servers that back up to this guy is only 36. So needless to say I would never expect to see missed backups related to servers missing their

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Jurjen Oskam
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 04:31:30PM +0200, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you cannot backup to a copypool. Am I wrong here? No, but that's not a problem. Suppose you have a disaster. At the DR site, you have all your copypool data, but all your

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Allen S. Rout
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:31:30 +0200, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi Allen! Thank you very much for your reaction! Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you cannot backup to a copypool. Am I wrong here? No, you can't back up to a copy pool. But you don't care.

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Allen S. Rout
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:21:03 -0400, Prather, Wanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: An even better idea is putting the PRIMARY pool at the twin center, and the COPY pool at your main center. That way in a disaster that hits your clients, your TSM server is unaffected; you're ready to do restores as

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Prather, Wanda
Allen, Thanks for the kind words, but it's not me, it's the Fibre. One of my sites is buying a VTL to replace the primary pool. But putting the VTL OFFSITE, and keeping the 3584 for the Copypool onsite. We're even using a hand-me-down Windows server as a backup domain controller in the offsite

Re: Making TSM twin-center compliant

2006-09-01 Thread Aaron Durkee
Yes, we have some luxeries others don't. Our MAN/WAN is sufficent with dark fiber to back up cross site, so in the nature of the backup its offsite as soon as its complete. Since tape needs a copy in the advent of media failure we zone our fabric so the TSM server tape libraries have a couple

HDS shadow image ITSM

2006-09-01 Thread Gianluca Perilli
Hi all, is anyone of you out there using the HDS shadowimage feature ITSM? If yes could you pls tell me on which platform and for which application? Thks in advance for your answer Cordiali saluti / Best regards Gianluca Perilli

Re: HDS shadow image ITSM

2006-09-01 Thread Thomas Denier
-Gianluca Perilli wrote: - is anyone of you out there using the HDS shadowimage feature ITSM? If yes could you pls tell me on which platform and for which application? Thks in advance for your answer We are currently using Shadowimage to back up a Cache database used by an IDX

Re: TSM server on Linux x86 64 bit

2006-09-01 Thread Orville Lantto
Look carefully at the IO load. Most x86 systems cannot handle as much IO on their busses as the pSeries hardware does. What bandwidth do you have on your network connection. Fourteen LTO drives is a lot of potential MB/sec, but if you bottleneck things at the Ethernet adapter (or elsewhere),

Re: TSM server on Linux x86 64 bit

2006-09-01 Thread Steven Harris
David, Get two quotes, one from an IBM partner for a Series P/AIX solution, and one from a *different* IBM partner for a Series X/Linux solution. I suggest two partners because if you use one they might try to skew the decision one way or the other, depending on their sales quotas this month :)