On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:33:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2018 15:01:55 -0400, "Marc A Kaplan" said:
>
> > I see there are also low-power / zero-power disk archive/arrays available.
> > Any experience with those?
>
> The last time I looked at those (which was a
On Wed, 09 May 2018 15:01:55 -0400, "Marc A Kaplan" said:
> I see there are also low-power / zero-power disk archive/arrays available.
> Any experience with those?
The last time I looked at those (which was a few years ago) they were
competitive
with tape for power consumption, but not on cost
+1 for benefits of tape and also power consumption/heat production (may help a
case to management) is obviously better with things that don’t have to be
spinning all the time.
>
> At scale tape is a lot cheaper than disk. Also sorry your data is going
> to take a couple of weeks to recover
Not sure if the topic is appropriate, but I know an installation case
which employs IBM Spectrum Scale's snapshot function along with IBM
Spectrum Protect to save the backup date onto LTO7 tape media. Both
software components running on Linux on Power (RHEL 7.3 BE) if that
matters. Of course,
o: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Cc: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots for backups
From my perspective the difference / benefits of using something lik
On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 12:50 +, Andrew Beattie wrote:
>
> From my perspective the difference / benefits of using something like
> Protect and using backup policies over snapshot policies - even if
> its disk based rather than tape based, is that with a backup you get
> far better control
pfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 4:38 PMTo: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>Cc: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>Subject: Re: [g
;gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 4:38 PM
To: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Cc: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots for backups
Hi Jo
Hi Jonathan,
First off a couple of questions:
1) your using Scale+Protect with Tape today?
2) your new filesystems will be within the same cluster ?
3) What capacity are the new filesystems
Based on the above then:
AFM-DR will give you the Replication that you are talking about -- please
On Tue, 08 May 2018 14:59:37 -, "Lloyd Dean" said:
> First it must be understood the snap is either at the filesystems or fileset,
> and more importantly is not an application level backup. This is a huge
> difference to say Protects many application integrations like exchange,
> databases,
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>
Date: 08/05/2018 15:44
Subject:[gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots for backups
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
We are looking at standing up some new filesystems and management would
like us
Jonathan,
First it must be understood the snap is either at the filesystems or fileset,
and more importantly is not an application level backup. This is a huge
difference to say Protects many application integrations like exchange,
databases, etc.
With that understood the approach is similar
We are looking at standing up some new filesystems and management would like us
to investigate alternative options to Scale+Protect. In particular, they are
interested in the following:
Replicate to a remote filesystem (I assume this is best done via AFM).
Take periodic (probably daily)
13 matches
Mail list logo
