Evan,

A few vague comments and additional questions,

You mention that ". . . the 3584 was recommended but then seen as a
likely bottleneck."  In what way could this be seen as a bottleneck?
Appropriately configured, it would have significant capacity in excess
of your 500 GB.  It could attach to both machines and function
independently on either.  I would have thought a 3584 would be almost
the high end for your configuration, unless you need super-speedy
restore of individual objects.

For less than the cost of a 3584 you could get two 3581's with 1,400 GB
of storage at standard 2:1 compression.  Since your customer already has
BRMS and TSM, it is possible that they would have the sophistication and
technical expertise to take full advantage of a full-blown library
device like the 3584.  The price difference between a 3580 (single slot)
and a 3581 (seven slots) is not great enough to consider the 3580.
Something like $5,000+ vs. about $8,000.

What functionality (based on business need) does you customer require
that necessitates a full tape library as opposed to a seven-slot
autoloader?

How price-sensitive is your customer?  Is IBM overselling?

If your customer starts looking at the 3590 models, consider a
fiber-channel interface.  This won't fly on the 720, but it would ensure
that the connection between the machines is not a limiting factor in
throughput.

I tend towards lowest-cost solutions, unless there is an overriding
business requirement.

Regards,
Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

> Here goes with a vague question....
>
> I have a customer with an 820 with just short of 300 gigabytes of disk
> currently being backed up to 3570 B1 using BRMS/TSM combination. They
also
> have a 720 with a similar amount of disk and tape drive, used as a
> development machine and a standby DR machine. This second machine will
in
> the future some time probably be upgraded to an 820 and is almost
certain
> to act as a data replication point for the primary production machine.
> These things are just a matter of when not if according to the
customer.
> Obviously the disk will grow and 500 gigabyte data quantities are not
that
> far off as is some kind of near 24/7 operation.
>
> The customer has been talking to IBM about how to proceed with
upgrading
> their tape devices and the long and short of it is that there seems to
be
> some confusion as to what is a good upgrade plan strategy taking into
> account their current configuration. I believe the 3584 was
recommended
> but
> then seen as a likely bottleneck.
>
> Without a lot of thought my suggestion to the customer was to get a
> smallish LTO on the prod box to be used for tape backup and restore in
the
> immediate future, and down the track for those one-off events and tape
> transfers, and a larger LTO on the dev/back-up box where the major
tape
> work is likely to be conducted when they get their replication in
place.
>
> What general (or specific) suggestions does anyone have about
> configurations and hardware they use for similar setups and why ?
Anyone
> got any good thoughts, questions, ideas, things they wouldn't do again
to
> share ?
>
> Any response appreciated
>
> Regards
> Evan Harris



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.