The Gresham EDT software is needed for LAN-free and/or a SHARED library, and then it's only needed on the LAN-free clients and TSM server --- not all clients.
Also, I believe this middleware is not needed for IBM library; only STK w/ACSLS. Don France Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant Tivoli Storage Manager, WinNT/2K, AIX/Unix, OS/390 San Jose, Ca (408) 257-3037 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Professional Association of Contract Employees (P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com) -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joni Moyer Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rif. : LTO Tape OR 9840 Our problem is that with our 9310 silo, if we go the IBM way we will have to purchase a third party software, Gresham, that will manage the library. >From what I understand this is not a cheap solution because we have to pay for each license we have out there which is approximately 250. What is your environment? Do you have any problems/concerns with either one? Thanks! Joni Moyer Associate Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (717)975-8338 Guillaume Gilbert <guillaume.gilbert@DESJA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RDINS.COM> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Subject: Rif. : LTO Tape OR 9840 Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/24/2002 04:38 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Hi Joni I personnaly prefer 9840's but the bean counters love the LTO because the drives are very much lower cost and the cost per GB is lower. The 9840 is probably the best drive/tape on the market today. The native thruput of 9840b's is 20 mb/sec while the LTO is 16 mb/sec. The start/stop on the 9840 is considerably faster than the LTO. Reclaiming a 40 - 50 % full LTO took me 4 to 5 hours (client compressed data) and I can move data a full 9840 (client compressed data) in less than 30 minutes. I reclaim my 9840 at 40% and do about 20 to 30 tapes a day easy. Is your STK silo a 9310 or a 5500? Or is it one of the smaller ones like a L180 or L700? With the big silos the mount time is not much of an issue. The seek time will be faster with the 9840. As for tape life, I've been working with 9840s for a little over a year without any tape failure. I look at it this way : if I lose a 9840, I loose a max of 20 GB of data. With an LTO, I loose 5 times that. Guillaume Gilbert CGI Canada Joni Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 2002-07-24 15:17:32 Veuillez ripondre ` "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envoyi par : "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pour : [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc : Objet : LTO Tape OR 9840 Hello everyone! The environment here is going to be changing soon... We will be moving off of the mainframe and onto an AIX server that will be on our SAN. We will have 1 STK silo for the tapes for 2 TSM servers. Right now we are considering IBM's LTO or STK's 9840. I was just wondering if anyone out there has had experience with either one and if so, what are the pro's and con's of them? Has anyone that has worked with LTO know how long it takes to recover a bad tape? Considering that they are 100GB tapes, it was assumed that it would take 5 times as long as it does to recover a Magstar 3590(20 GB). And also, do the tapes get damaged easily or is that all a matter of handling them to take them offsite to vaults? Thank you!!!! Joni Moyer Associate Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (717)975-8338
