Take in to consideration that the VTL's have limited bandwidth regardless of Fibre connectivity so lets say you have a VTL head with 4 x 4gig fibre ports 1600MBS of bandwidth but your vtl head maxes out @ 500-1000MBS. Then think of in a LAN free env, you have one VTL head provide LAN free mount points so one DB host zoned to a VTL with 2 * 4gb ports potentially pushing 400MBS to a head that supports 500-1000MBS so you'll be dedicating a expensive VTL for one to two DB hosts backup? It maybe cheaper to do Disk based snaps for large db's Also take in to consideration cost of Fibre ports on your switch, seprate FC HBA's for you hosts etc.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Huebner,Andy,FORT WORTH,IT Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:04 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool Another consideration is that FC is faster than Ethernet. 8GB FC > 10GB FCoE Ether-Over-Head is much greater than FC over-head. Also, virtual tape libraries will fit nicely with your companies virtualization strategy, where file device class storage does not. We currently use VTL, our next iteration of TSM (3 years) will most likely be File device class storage. I would say there is no real advantage either way. Both types of storage have unique "features". For us the Ethernet network was not built to handle the data load to where our storage is and we had existing FC. Andy Huebner -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Prather, Wanda Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 3:25 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool The one drop-dead difference is that if you want to do LAN-Free, the target has to be a tape (or tape-emulating) device. Can't use TSM filepools. If you replicate between VTL's, it's transparent to TSM, but you have to have the same vendor hardware at both sites. Dedup may also be faster with a VTL, if your VTL does it in-line. Also a VTL is often quicker to set up (which doesn't necessarily mean it is easier to maintain, if you consider firmware updates, multiple maintenance contracts, etc.) TSM 6.2 has to dedup as part of the reclaim process, post-data-landing-there. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a different way. To get replication of the deduped data, you have to set up a second/copy pool yourself; but it does not have to be the same hardware on both ends. There is nothing about having a VTL/VTL gateway that inherently means you can do fewer concurrent backups than with a TSM filepool, depends on your hardware. You can have a fast VTL or a slow crappy VTL, just depends on what you pay for... -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Brown Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:05 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool What advantage does VTL emulation on a disk primary storage pool have as compared to disk storage pool that is non vtl ? It appears to me that a non vtl system would not require the daily reclamation process and also allow for more client backups to occur simultaneously. Thanks, Tim Brown Systems Specialist - Project Leader Central Hudson Gas & Electric 284 South Ave Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Email: tbr...@cenhud.com <<mailto:tbr...@cenhud.com>> Phone: 845-486-5643 Fax: 845-486-5921 Cell: 845-235-4255 This message contains confidential information and is only for the intended recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this note and deleting all copies and attachments. 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. This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
