Yeah, for me the biggest weakness of the NBU DSSUs.
| "Paul Keating" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23/03/2006 15:48
|
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: <veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] on the subject of disk based backups.... |
excellent info...Now that you mention it....my one small DSSU I have configured to offload to a specific tape pool, so I should have known that.
That definately sways me in the direction of VTL then.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2006 8:30 AM
To: Paul Keating
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] on the subject of disk based backups....
Hi Paul,
from my experience what you say about DSSU is incorrect, a single DSSU cannot stage the data off to multiple tape tape pools - if you have a requirement to stage to different tape pools you need to have a at least one DSSU per tape pool,
cheers Andy.
| "Paul Keating" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23/03/2006 13:05 | To: <veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> cc: Subject: [Veritas-bu] on the subject of disk based backups.... |
I'm also interested in thoughts regarding VTL vs DSSU.
DSSU interests me mostly because I can write multiple jobs at once without any regard for tape pool, mpx or not, retention, etc.....
...then it all gets sorted out to appropriate tapes during the destaging
VTL still presents itself to NBU as a tape, so each virtual tape drive must be licensed with Veritas, in additional to the physical tape drives (unless the VTL is run inline, though there could be issues there regarding estimated compression, etc.)
Just a couple things off the top of my head.
Just wondering who is using DSSU, adn who is using VTL, adn why you made that choice....ie.what were the key requirements for your environment that made one option better than the other.
Paul
