Yeah, it's a hard balance to strike. Having one tool to do it all makes training and support simpler and easier. But... if that tool can't do it all as well as a specific tool, then maybe it's not a good tradeoff to make.
I don't have a good answer, but in some cases just pure $$$ costs argues against going with more than one tool. Dunno... But getting back to the root cause, I think going with smaller datastores is the best track here. Adam> The more we look into this, the more I think that trying to use Adam> just one tool is going to mean that some part of the environment Adam> isn't going to work well. Different tools have different Adam> strengths. Our management is pushing for this one tool solution Adam> as well, but it's causing some difficulties because of the Adam> limitations. Adam> -Adam Adam> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:42 AM, John Stoffel <j...@stoffel.org> wrote: >>>>>> "Ray" == Ray Van Dolson <rvandol...@esri.com> writes: Ray> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:58:12AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: Ray> <snip> >>> We're going to have the same type of problem down the line too, and >>> I've used CommVault (on FC SAN volumes), a little bit of Veeam, and >>> we're moving to Netbackup with Snapmanager on NFS datastores. Ray> Out of curiosity, what made you move away from Veeam? Adam> Politics, licensing, trying to consolidate down to one tool (if Adam> possible). The usual. _______________________________________________ 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/
