|
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 mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.