Re: Compatibility between different vendors VTL solutions

Hi Laurence

No idea re the screen shot, attachments get stripped from the list - so
perhaps you need to share a link.

In terms of the difference:
RSTLIB->Transmit to new site->SAVLIB
Would involve you doing a restore (possibly of multiple libraries) to the
local system, then either transmitting those libraries to the remote system
one by one (SAVRSTLIB approach).

If you don't use SAVRSTLIB (which requires a small amount of additional
setup if you know what you are doing) then you would need to save the
libraries again into either a save file (one per library) or onto virtual
tape (allows multiple libs), and then transmit the save files or virtual
tape over the wire to the remote system where you would then restore the
libraries and be ready to save them again onto virtual tape.

The advantage of SAVRSTLIB in this instance is that it does a kind of
inplace save and transmit to the remote system where the library is
restored, so SAV on local system and restore on remote system in one step.

If you use storage replication, or logical/remote journaling replication
you would just restore to the local system then check that the storage or
replication process has synched on the remote site and then perform the
save to VTL there. The replication to the remote site would then happen as
the restore is performed.

if you had a couple of IASPs set up for the restores and replicated to a
remote system you might be able to kind of have two processes happening at
once. Restore to IASP#1; let it sync; save IASP#1 at remote end; while
ASP#1 is saving on remote system restore to IASP#2.... repeat as required.

In terms of effort, I don't think it would be difficult to justify the cost
of either buying an additional VTL at the local site and just doing a
DUPTAP between the units or even installing the unit locally initially and
then relocating it when the DUPTAP is completed for the whole library. I'd
expect the DUPTAP to be pretty slow but maybe it would be quicker and safer
than multiple saves, restores and transmits. I'd also expect it to be much
easier to audit as you would be matching volumes on a one to one basis.



On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:35 PM Laurence Chiu <lchiu7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That looks like a great idea but I don't have the technical knowledge to
assess it in our situation.

I'm not sure what tool is used for backup and restore but does this
screenshot provide any clues?

Are you saying we RSTLIB from the old VTL and then let SAN replication move
the files to the other DC and then save to the VTL there? I'm not familiar
with the difference in function between SAVLIB and SAVRST and so the effort
saved

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 12:41 PM Evan Harris <auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

--

Regards
Evan Harris
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: https://amazon.midrange.com

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: https://amazon.midrange.com