Since we use 9840 tapes, we didn't want clients with 1-2 gb of data to use 1 whole tape. So we did just what you described. We have over 50% of our clients in this situation. We put the "limit" at 10-12 GB (a 9840 holds 20 GB). Sure you have to carve up you're disk pool but the small clients don't require alot of disks. Their pool is only 10 GB and it can hold a night's worth of backups easily.
Guillaume Gilbert CGI Canada Matt Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 2002-10-22 09:46:13 Veuillez r�pondre � "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envoy� par : "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pour : [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc : Objet : Re: Co-location At 3:53 PM -0400 10/21/02, Thach, Kevin said: >The person that installed our environment basically set up 6 Policy Domains: >Colodom, Exchange, Lanfree, MSSQL, Nocodom, and Oracle. > >99% of the clients are in the Nocodom (non-collocated) domain, which has one >policy set, and one management class which has one backup copy group with >retention policies set to NOLIMIT, 3, 60, 60. This is away from the topic of Kevin's question, but his background info led to a question that we're looking at right now. We currently have one big disk pool for all our backups, which migrates to one tape pool, which we copy to another tape pool for offsite. We turned on co-location on the onsite tape pool a couple of weeks ago, because we just started using the SQL TDP, and the doc recommended colocation. We turned it back off this morning, because we were running out of tapes and had a lot of them that were only 5% full. We would like to do what Kevin says he's doing: specify colocation for a small number of our clients and leave it off for a bunch of them. But, if I understand correctly, colocation isn't specified directly in the management class. It's specified on the tape storage pool definition. So specifying colocation for some clients but not all would require multiple tape storage pools, which wouldn't really be a problem. But it looks like that would also require multiple disk storage pools, because, as far as I can tell, the only way to get a client into a different tape pool is to have it in a different disk pool. We'd really like to avoid carving up our disk space into more smaller pools. But, as far as I can tell, that's the only way to use colocation selectively. Am I missing something, or is that the way it works? -- Matt Simpson -- OS/390 Support 219 McVey Hall -- (859) 257-2900 x300 University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 <mailto:msimpson@;uky.edu> mainframe -- An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as fast as last year's.
