On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Skylar Thompson <skylar.thomp...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 05/12/2013 10:21 AM, Jack Coats wrote: > >> >> Professionally I have long liked IBMs TSM Storage Manager product with >> the Disaster Recovery option, but that is out of the price range for most. >> >> > I've been a TSM admin for years, so I admit I'm biased, but at scale I > don't think there is much competition to TSM. The advantage of the > progressive incremental backup (basically, incremental-forever w/o every > doing a full) outweighs the licensing costs. What's going to kill TSM is if > IBM ever fully rolls out the capacity-based licensing they've been > threatening for years. I don't think their marketing folks realize that the > big advantage of TSM is turning the cost of backups from storing multiple > copies of a filesystem to tracking only the changes in those filesystems. > > Skylar > IBM every few years seems to feel the need to change the billing method just to keep the market guessing about if things are 'legal' or not. Over the years I went thru several conversions of billing methods. The one I liked was pay for a license, and the server license was effectively free. In any case, technically I found it worked well and if we kept enough replicated copies off site, there was never a problem in getting restores done eventually even for DR testing. Never did like the number of tapes needed to do a full restore, but it always worked. I think I never found the right mix of backup groups vs clients.
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
