Re: Compatibility between different vendors VTL solutions

[Evan Harris <auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx>]

If you are going to:
RSTLIB->Transmit to new site->SAVLIB
then - assuming you are using a storage subsystem - maybe if you set up
some storage replication you can avoid an explicit SAVRST for each library
(or whatever) and just do the saves when the storage is synched at the
remote site. A replication product could do the same thing for you if you
are using internal disk.

Just a thought.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:53 AM Laurence Chiu <lchiu7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> That looks at least feasible given the geographical constraints.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 1:47 AM Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > I don't know if that would work since once a VTL backup is restored what
> > format is it?
> > </snip>
> > Same format that the data would be if you restored from a 3590, 3570,
> > LTO1-7, etc.
> >
> > What they are suggesting is
> > 1 - PRODA at site A saves to old VTL.  Old VTL is also hooked up to DEVA
> > at site A.
> > 2 - RSTLIB is done on DEVA at site A.  This library looks the same as if
> > it were restored from mylar tape.
> > 3 - Then you either save that to a *SAVF and transmit that to DEVB or
> > PRODB, or you use SAVRST to move it from DEVA to DEVB or PRODB at site B.
> > 4 - Once it is on some lpar at site B then you do your SAVLIB to your new
> > VTL.
> > Step 2 will require space for the library to be restored.
> > Step 3 will require the space for a *SAVF, unless you use SAVRST.
> > Step 3 will also require significantly more bandwidth than the automatic
> > replication between like VTL's with good dedup.
> > Step 4 will require space on the target lpar to restore the data and save
> > to local VTL.
> > All this will lose all your retention dates that you've set up with BRMS.
> > All this will lose all your capability to do a WRKOBJBRM and find what
> > tapes have what object.
> >
> > It's doable but clearly not what I'd recommend.
> > I realize that VTL's are expensive.  Compare them to one of those huge
> IBM
> > media libraries with 10 drives and hundreds of LTO7 tapes loaded into it
> at
> > $/tape and it's not so bad.  Now add the dedup and automatic replication
> > and they really shine.  Plus they also remove the hours of manual tape
> > handling, dealing with Iron Mountain or whomever to pick up, store,
> > retrieve tapes, etc.
> >
> >
> > Rob Berendt
> > --
> > IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
> > Group Dekko
> > Dept 1600
> > Mail to:  2505 Dekko Drive
> >           Garrett, IN 46738
> > Ship to:  Dock 108
> >           6928N 400E
> >           Kendallville, IN 46755
> > http://www.dekko.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> > Laurence Chiu
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:47 PM
> > To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Subject: Re: Compatibility between different vendors VTL solutions
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > Hi Ed
> >
> > This is what one of our local tech users said we could do
> >
> >
> >    - Restore from VTL to Site A Dev LPARs
> >    - Transfer from Site A Dev to Site B prod LPAR;
> >    - Save from Site B prod LPAR to Site B prod ATL/VTL;
> >    - Transfer from Site A dev to Site B dr LPAR;
> >    - Save from Site B dr LPAR to Site B dr ATL/VTL;
> >    -
> >
> > At the moment Site A VTL is ProtecTier.
> >
> > Site B VTL not purchased yet.
> >
> > I don't know if that would work since once a VTL backup is restored what
> > format is it?
> >
> > The devil is in the detail which I don't have yet.