Gil, I was thinking that a faster restore would be have some value as a reduction in recovery time, as opposed to back-up duration which is usually outside of any business critical path.
This would have value in business continuance whether it was a small application recovery or a full disaster recovery situation. I don't think the frequency of recovery is a factor in this case. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Hardware-assisted compression: not CPU-efficient? > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 02:53:17 -0800, Ron Hawkins wrote: > > > >The saving in hardware assisted compression is in decompression - when you > read it. Look at what should be a much lower CPU cost to decompress the files > during restore and decide if the speed of restoring the data concurrently is > worth the increase in CPU required to back it up in the first place. > > > So if you restore more frequently than you backup, you come out ahead? > > -- gil > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
