On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:09:20 -0500, Todd Last tl...@uchicago.edu wrote:
I'm looking for recommendations and references of either product (pros amp;
cons). I
understand that both CA Vtape and IBM VTFM eats CPU cycles for their
compression routines (thus a good requirement to get a ziip processor
We use CA-Vtape, and it has been an integral part of our DR strategy as
it provides a means for enforcement for application tapes having an
off-site vault presence.
I suppose it would be possible to throw enough DASD cache at CA-Vtape to
keep all virtual tapes on DASD, but for us this would have
Shai Hess's product seems enticing. (But
he says he tweaked the AWSTAPE format to improve performance.)
I use my tape and disk format.
I support conversion from AWSDISK and AWSTAPE to MFNetDisk tape and disk
format and the other way.
The reason that I do not use AWSTAPE format for emulation is
Timothy,
I didn't say that our current solution was 'bad'. It has been working very
well
at our current site. The problem is that a lot of production data is stored on
virtual tape - used in day-to-day processes. At the DR site, we need access
to this data. We can not bring our appliance
We use VTMF. I can't compare it to anything else, but it works fine for us.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Todd Last
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CA Vtape vs. IBM VTFM - Comparing virtual tape solutions
Timothy,
I didn't say that our
snip
I didn't say that our current solution was 'bad'. It has
been working very well
at our current site. The problem is that a lot of production
data is stored on
virtual tape - used in day-to-day processes. At the DR site,
we need access
to this data. We can not bring our
We use CA-VTAPE and it works REALLY good! The only serious problems we
have had with it have been self inflicted :)
Lucy Arnold
Storage Manager
U.C. Davis Medical Center
916-734-5498
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
STK (and probably most) VTS solutions offer a dup function similar to dfHSM
duplexing. The VTS does the work at the time of file creation, all you have to
do is eject the back-end cart containing the dup copies.
You can, if you think you can afford it, also have a remote VTS (at least with
snip
STK (and probably most) VTS solutions offer a dup function similar to
dfHSM duplexing. The VTS does the work at the time of file creation, all
you have to do is eject the back-end cart containing the dup copies.
You can, if you think you can afford it, also have a remote VTS (at
least with
that will duplex each logical volume at dismount time, instead of
each I/O.
That is how the STK version works...
I assumed as much, but I've never worked with other than IBM's version.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
promising. I'm
looking for recommendations and references of either product (pros cons). I
understand that both CA Vtape and IBM VTFM eats CPU cycles for their
compression routines (thus a good requirement to get a ziip processor). How
much CPU does it take away from your CPU?
Also, what sort
Todd, could you amplify a bit on what's bad about your current virtual
tape? I think that would help in advising whether a particular
software-based approach would be a good fit or not.
I didn't understand the DR point you raised. There are many shops that have
virtual tape hardware in their
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:09:20 -0500, Todd Last wrote:
We are looking at replacing our appliance-based mainframe virtual tape
solutions with software-based virtual tape solutions. The only two solutions
that I know of are CA's VTape and IBM's VTFM. ...
Do any of the options employ AWSTAPE or any
We converted to CA VTAPE in October 2005 on a z800-0C1 (143 MIPS?). We have
been very impressed with it but it does eat some CPU. It did wonders for our
batch schedule at night. We were very busy during the day but had cycles to
spare at night.
From 10/03-9/05 00:00-08:00 we averaged 34.5% busy
Does anyone have comments about CA VTAPE? I did some archive searches
and got some hits from 2005. I was wondering if there are any more recent
experiences. I am probably most curious about CPU consumption. One of the
2005 post talked about a 15% hit on a Z890. There was a response to turn
Tom,
Quite a bit has been done with CA-Vtape since 2005 to help reduce CPU
utilization. In particular CA-Vtape will exploit a zIIP (if available of
course). And yes, if a zIIP is not available then compression will be done
using main CPU cycles; so then you have to balance the need
No zIIP's. So what kind of a number are we talking?
-- Original message --
From: Russell Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom,
Quite a bit has been done with CA-Vtape since 2005 to help reduce CPU
utilization. In particular CA-Vtape will exploit a zIIP (if available
Current environment: Running CA-VTAPE version 2.0 shared across multiple Lpars
Prod, QUAL, TEST). We are planning to implement CA-VTAPE 11 in the net few
weeks/months. We are also implementing newer naming standards across all LPARS
to comply with upper manangement directives and management
CA-1 Level-2 Support Manager
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mike Liberatore
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: CA-VTAPE Questions
Current environment: Running CA-VTAPE version 2.0 shared
20 matches
Mail list logo
