×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
When I've done it the virtual tape space was similar to that used by a
save file.
Testing today with a 73 GB library on a V5R4 system.
Original library = 73 GB
Save File = 73 GB (a bit smaller than the original library, less than
1%, took 19 minutes.)
Image Files for virtual tape = 73 GB (again a bit smaller than the
original library, less than 1%, took 20 minutes.)
Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest
-----Original Message-----
From: John McKee [mailto:jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:45 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Virtual tape
To back up 100G of DASD to virtual tape, would you need 100G of DASD for
the virtual tape? Or possibly a better question: Does virtual tape
utilize data compression, thus not requiring quite as much space as if
data was simply copied disk to disk?
How would the size be calculated?
How does virtual tape compare to using a save file or multiple save
files?
John McKee
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.
midrange.com
