We're keeping our existing 3494 with eight 3590H1A's to handle workstation and smaller size node backups (being we're heavily invested already). We've just ordered and received a 3584 with six LTO2 drives to handle our increasing demand for offsite media copies as well as large server/node backups. We're anticipating approximately 75Tb of growth in the next year that can be handled much more efficiently and cost-effectively using LTO2 drives and a new library. I think the answer is probably both, but you really have to determine on your own being there are a number of variables to consider (particularly sunk costs).
Luke 818-354-7117 James R Owen wrote: > To other TSM sites w/ substantial investment in 3590 technology: > > We are again trying to figure out what to do for additional TSM tape > capacity. We currently have two IBM 3494 ATL's (each w/ six 3590E1A > SCSI-connected drives and ~2000 tapes in each) for primary STGpools. > We also have two IBM 3584 ATL's (one w/ four LTO1 and two LTO2 drives, > and another w/ three LTO1 and three LTO2 drives, all FC and all > using LTO1 media.) [The LTO's were our remote, online Copy STGpools.] > > To continue using 3590 media for our primary tape STGpools, we either > need to buy an additional 3494 frame (used?) or convert our existing > drives from 3590E's to 3590H's (used?). The E->H conversion would > eventually give us 50% more capacity with our existing media via TSM > tape reclamation processing. That seems reasonable to me, but... > > Others here speculate that perhaps we should consider converting from > 3590 to LTO media because of increasing 3590 maintenance costs, etc. > Another concern is that in 3-5 years our 3590 media may be obsolete > [definitely beyond the 10 year warranty period], so why not get off now? > > Are you [other sites substantially invested in 3590's] continuing to > invest in 3590's -or- are you converting to other (LTO?) tape technology? > > Is anyone considering/already doing a substantial 3590->LTO conversion? > If so, we would like to talk with you. > > Thanks for your help. > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (203.432.6693)
