Ed, While it's not perfect, what if you did the FlashCopy to a completely controller?
If you have HDS DASD, you could virtualize some brand-x midrange disk and FlashCopy or Shadowimage the zFS files/volumes to the midrange storage. Using FlashCopy Incremental means that you only copy what you change. If offsite backup is required then you can replicate the virtualized volume, or you can still backup the midrange volume to tape. It's going to take the same amount of time, but it would be out of the critical path. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat. This is just one way that I thought a HDS site could approach the problem of long backups of zFS with small change rates. Ron -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Reducing Backup Time (Was: Mod-9 vs. Mod-27 vs. mixed) On 2/23/2013 9:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > Most of my department's large UNIX filesystems are NFS mounted from > ZFS (not zFS) on Solaris servers. Our daily backups are ZFS > snapshots, almost negligible latency, followed by background dumps to > tape. Right. FLASHCOPY of a large volume on our DS8100 can be done in almost an instant. But, copying the volume's data to tape takes hours -- as mentioned previously. My question is about whether a DFS/SMB ZFS should be backed up at all given its size and the existence of a daily TSM backup of its contents. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
