TSM storage used?

How can I query TSM to find how much storage is currently in use
now (tape) for all the files (corporate-wide) that are backed
up (under TSM's control)? I was just asked a question do we
want to get rid of the tape robot and move to JBOD instead.
Thoughts on doing that kind of move?

Mike

In article , Mike wrote:
How can I query TSM to find how much storage is currently in use
now (tape) for all the files (corporate-wide) that are backed
up (under TSM's control)? I was just asked a question do we

Run the dsmadmc utility (TSM administrative tool) and do a 'query
stgpool' (or 'q stg' for short) and add up numbers.

want to get rid of the tape robot and move to JBOD instead.
Thoughts on doing that kind of move?

Not bad if you want to optimize for faster restores but rather poor for
archiving... and one generally probably wants to still have tape backups
to back up disk data. Put it another way: would you have faith in
reliance of hard drives to save the organization when a bad day hits?

I've got a pile of 20 dead drives by my desk -- and I would say no.
(My boss has the other pile of ~25.)

Put it another way... how often do you do restores? (some sites do it
all the time) Is it a time critical environment like a bank, hospital,
nuclear plant, and so forth where data must be available in milliseconds
instead of ~1-3 minutes? That setup is why a lot of Wall St. firms
bought disk based setups *but* they also had tape backing it up.

Basically as a multi-tiered strategy; disk for rapid backups/restores
but if disks goes south, replace disk, and restore data to disk from
tape, making data easily available again. (Or even pulling directly from
tape until failed disk is replaced.)

TSM can accommodate the above scenario trivially, and that's what I
would go if I had a need to put in disks as primary restore media.

Our tape libs are fast enough and our restores so far and few between
(and usually for a single file or directory) that we haven't needed this
so far.

We also use a diskpool as an intermediate staging area to accelerate
backups and get maximum client-server-disk-tape performance. So we
actually do get most of the benefits of using disks, albeit not for
restores... but frankly, not really an issue because the tape drive runs
at speeds well exceeding Fast Ethernet... about 2.5x faster.

I can see how it'd be more of an issue with older drives that can't
saturate the network, though. A properly designed LTO-2 setup can also
fill a gig-e pipe at full tape speed and actually ship data around at
least as fast as drives or even faster (albeit waiting 1-3 minute to
start peeling data off tape vs waiting 4.5ms), too.

-Dan

In article , Dan Foster wrote:

Not bad if you want to optimize for faster restores but rather poor for
archiving... and one generally probably wants to still have tape backups
to back up disk data. Put it another way: would you have faith in
reliance of hard drives to save the organization when a bad day hits?

I would have about the same faith in hard drives as tapes. With TSM I would
want to use separate copy pools on separate disks and controlers (and servers?)
in case of disk failures, just as we do with tapes.

Actually I think you can do even better with copy pools on disk arrays with
RAID5, than what's possible with tape.

Only advantages tapes still has is that they generate less heat, and still
seems to be quite a bit cheaper than disks.

-jf

On 13 Apr 2004 16:35:20 GMT, Jan-Frode Myklebust
wrote:


In article , Dan Foster wrote:

Not bad if you want to optimize for faster restores but rather poor for
archiving... and one generally probably wants to still have tape backups
to back up disk data. Put it another way: would you have faith in
reliance of hard drives to save the organization when a bad day hits?

I would have about the same faith in hard drives as tapes. With TSM I would
want to use separate copy pools on separate disks and controlers (and servers?)
in case of disk failures, just as we do with tapes.

Actually I think you can do even better with copy pools on disk arrays with
RAID5, than what's possible with tape.

Only advantages tapes still has is that they generate less heat, and still
seems to be quite a bit cheaper than disks.

-jf

Also more easily portable. But I agree with the faith in disk v.
tape. You lose one disk and you can recover, you lose one tape and
you may be horked but good.

~F

Mike wrote in message ...

I was just asked a question do we want to get rid of the tape robot
and move to JBOD instead. Thoughts on doing that kind of move?


Don't forget...the most recent release of TSM (V5.2.2) also supports a
native Centera integration.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivo...ents-v5.2.html

Rob Y...That would be 101 ;-)

Best of luck!
Ace

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CenteraTechGroup/

On 22 Apr 2004 15:25:10 -0700, (acebgur) wrote:

Mike wrote in message ...

I was just asked a question do we want to get rid of the tape robot
and move to JBOD instead. Thoughts on doing that kind of move?


Don't forget...the most recent release of TSM (V5.2.2) also supports a
native Centera integration.

Why would anyone care?

You are increasingly sounding like a desperate marketroid...

If you have nothing to say to Mike, try keeping your metaphorical
mouth shut...

Malc.

In article ,
says...
On 22 Apr 2004 15:25:10 -0700, (acebgur) wrote:

Mike wrote in message ...

I was just asked a question do we want to get rid of the tape robot
and move to JBOD instead. Thoughts on doing that kind of move?


Don't forget...the most recent release of TSM (V5.2.2) also supports a
native Centera integration.

Why would anyone care?

You are increasingly sounding like a desperate marketroid...

If you have nothing to say to Mike, try keeping your metaphorical
mouth shut...

Malc.


Hey Malcolm. Go easy on our friend here. If all you have is a hammer,
the whole world starts looking like a nail...

--paul

Malcolm Weir wrote in message

Don't forget...the most recent release of TSM (V5.2.2) also supports a
native Centera integration.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivo...ents-v5.2.html


Why would anyone care?


Hi Malcom-

Thank you for asking. I wasn't sure if Mike knew that IBM/TSM had
recently integrated with Centera. If Mike is looking to store
compliance sensitive financial data, x-rays, email data, or other
fixed-content then Centera might be a better option than JBOD.

Also, I wasn't sure if others in this group were aware that IBM
integrated their TSM storage solution with Centera. They have been
pretty hush-hush about it, mostly because they recently announced
their own compliance offering, the IBM TotalStorage Data Retention
450:

http://www.storage.ibm.com/disk/dr/p...heet-dr450.pdf

Good day mate...
Ace

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CenteraTechGroup

In article , (acebgur) writes:
Mike wrote in message ...

I was just asked a question do we want to get rid of the tape robot
and move to JBOD instead. Thoughts on doing that kind of move?


Don't forget...the most recent release of TSM (V5.2.2) also supports a
native Centera integration.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivo...ents-v5.2.html

Rob Y...That would be 101 ;-)

Ace


Hey Ace - I'll do you one better. 5.2 supports virtual tapes.
So for D2D backups you would of course use a much cheaper
solution (i.e. FastT and SATA) instead of Centera.

Rob