We currently use an older VTL for the primary pools and you might find it hard to tell the difference between it and disks. With the deduping VTLs out there the amount of storage needed will be reduced. Pick carefully if you go the dedup route. There are major speed differences depending on in-line vs. post processing. Check the archives, there are plenty of threads on collocation and cartridge size when using a VTL.
We are using 4 year old FalconStor VTLs with about 300TB stored. 2 crashes, no other trouble. We do use slightly undersized disk pools to frontend the VTLs. Andy Huebner -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Lee, Gary D. Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:55 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Questions about vtl useage Tsm server v5.5.4 running on suse sles9 under zvm 5.3. We are in need of expanding our storage. Currently have an ibm 8100. The disk is cheap enough, but the licensing for additional storage is outrageous. We are thinking of switching to using a vtl for onsite storage and doing away with our onsite tape. Are any folks out there using vtl, and if so what kinds and what has been your experience? I currently have about 3 tB of onsite tape, looking to at least double that when we pick up the exchange 2007 environment. Thanks for any information. Gary Lee Senior System Programmer Ball State University phone: 765-285-1310 This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
