|
Evan, Comments inline: > As I understand it the problem was more in the area of attaching to > perform > parallel saves. There was some discussion about whether the AS/400 could > drive the 3584 at full capacity or not, but I am repeating the customers > understanding of what they were told. (1) Parallel saves? Your description of the client below as being entranced with advanced features which they may not choose to afford strikes me as appropriate here. If they are truly moving towards an off-site replication environment, then their backup strategy should support that. They will have the opportunity to disconnect replication, save the data files from the backup box, and then resume replication. While they shouldn't dawdle, I'm not sure that parallel saves would be appropriate in that environment. Has your customer received an estimate for implementing High Availability? Do they know that they're looking at a large consulting budget for implementation and licensing? Do they know that their backup box may end up being larger than their production box because it will need to support a production load as well as supporting development and testing? How about the bandwidth costs to connect the two machines for real-time replication between remote sites? It's a huge thing and they really cannot design a backup strategy until they make a commitment on the replication thing. If they decide not to go with replication and still want to approach 24/7, then most steps to lessen the backup window can be justified, including having multiple tape drives for parallel saves. Depending on the size of your machines, it is possible that your machine(s) will not present data to the tape drives fast enough to push them to their rated throughput. If this is the case, then the benefits of parallel saves could be marginal. > The functions the customer is looking to obtain is primarily automated > backup with as little tape intervention as possible, sufficient tape > capacity to back their system up in one hit without intervention, and it > seems they want some ability to access offline tape data (a somewhat naive > requirement in my view). I am trying to steer them towards a tape solution > that provides The automated, unattended backup is possible with a wide selection of tape drives/libraries at a wide variety of costs. As you move upwards from 500 GB you may exceed the capacities of the 3570 and 3590 autoloader models and might need to move towards a library device using those technologies. The 3580 models will handle quite a bit more, but you sacrifice some speed on the save and a lot of speed on the restore of individual objects. The use of 'near-line storage' can be accomplished using the BRMS/TSM software which they already have installed. Another alternative to using a tape library is to set up a compressed secondary ASP using high-capacity drives. > IBM is probably unintentionally overselling - the customer has a bit of a > habit of acting and sounding like a rolls royce driver then gasping when > they see the cost. Having said that, the IBM people have not though > enough > about what the customer wants - the customer owns the box but does not > manage it (in actual fact they can't); IBM knows this but quotes based on > what the customer thinks they want. The customer bases what they think > they > want on their experience with PC's. I think you know where this ends up > going. It sounds like they need to make a continuum. At one end would be a nightly save with standard drive (large backup window). At the other end would be a full replication environment. Then plot some of the points in between. Faster drives, parallel saves, etc. Then start putting some dollars at these various points and see where they blink. Is it worth a $300,000 differential for 24x7 (I made up the dollar figure but it strikes me as conservative). > Minimum downtime is a requirement in the customers mind. They think they > need 24X7 and they are trying to obtain equipment that supports this. > Unfortunately they don't seem to quite get that real 24X7 also involves > designing the applications and procedures to deliver it - it's not just a > technical tape save issue. One of their consultants even had the gall to > suggest dropping the backups to improve availability (!) but I'm getting > slightly off-track. You have my sympathy. On the upside, it sounds like steady work. Hopefully you won't get in the difficult position of getting hired to accomplish the impossible based upon someone else's bad consulting. > Do I understand what you are saying as the fiber channel would fly on the > 820 but not the 720 ? It's my understanding that a fibre channel card cannot be installed on a 720. I went back to some documentation to confirm that and could not find it clearly stated. I believe it to be true but I would confirm elsewhere. Regards, Andy Nolen-Parkhouse
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.