Hi Rick, We don't have a time line defined for this yet. We have stabilized it for now. We encourage customers to look at the more modern and efficient ways to solve the use cases that virtual volumes were originally created for.
Del ---------------------------------------------------- "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 05/05/2017 11:06:43 AM: > From: Rick Saylor <rsay...@austincc.edu> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 05/05/2017 11:07 AM > Subject: Re: Questions related to Container pools > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > Del, > > Can you give us an rough idea of when or, more specifically, which > release of Spectrum Protect will no longer have virtual volume support? > > Thanks, > Rick Saylor > Austin Community College > > On 5/5/2017 5:41 AM, Del Hoobler wrote: > > Hi Joerg, > > > > The original purpose of virtual volumes was to simplify library use and > > sharing in an age where that was difficult. There are significantly better > > ways to solve the problems virtual volumes addressed with capabilities > > such as fiber channel, shared libraries (library virtualization), and even > > cloud. There are limitations on virtual volumes today and no current plans > > to carry them forward. > > > > Del > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 05/04/2017 > > 01:38:56 PM: > > > >> From: "J. Pohlmann" <jpohlm...@shaw.ca> > >> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > >> Date: 05/04/2017 01:39 PM > >> Subject: Re: Questions related to Container pools > >> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > >> > >> Hi Del. W,r,t Arnaud's q1 - perhaps you could convince your colleagues > > to > >> also open container storage pools for virtual volume (that is the > > archive > >> objects at the target server). I have some folks that like the idea of > >> backing up the database to VVs and also to produce the recovery plan > > file on > >> VVs, That way, the DRM set spcifications automate the retention of DBB > > and > >> RFP objects. Right now, they are using file device class volumes to > > store > >> the archive objects that back the VVs. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Joerg Pohlmann > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > > Del > >> Hoobler > >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:26 > >> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Questions related to Container pools > >> > >> Hi Arnaud, > >> > >> For question #1 ... The reason the information is in the document is > > because > >> Spectrum Protect restricts it. Stay tuned though, this could be allowed > >> soon. > >> > >> For question #2 ... The only reason we recommend using 1 pool is > > strictly > >> for the best possible deduplication rates AND the because container > > pools > >> can grow much larger in size than its legacy counterparts. For legacy > > pools, > >> the housekeeping that was required on the pool made it impossible to > > grow a > >> pool too large (identify, reclamations, etc..). With container pools, > > this > >> is no longer an issue, so we wanted to call that out. If you want to > > split > >> container pools up, knowing the potential dedup rates fallout, that's > >> perfectly fine ... there are no other repercussions/issues. We have a > > lot of > >> customers who have done this, primarily around the partitioning of data > >> sources (VE, TDPs, BA, etc.) > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Del > >> > >> ===================================== > >> > >> > >> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 05/03/2017 > >> 10:47:52 AM: > >> > >>> From: PAC Brion Arnaud <arnaud.br...@panalpina.com> > >>> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > >>> Date: 05/03/2017 10:49 AM > >>> Subject: Questions related to Container pools Sent by: "ADSM: Dist > >>> Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > >>> > >>> Hi Team ! > >>> > >>> IBM recently released an interesting document summarizing best > >>> practices with regards to container storage pools (https:// > >>> www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home?lang=en#!/wiki/Tivoli > >>> Storage Manager/page/Container Pool Best Practices ) and some of the > >>> information in it triggered two questions, which I would like some > >>> Spectrum Protect insider (Del ?) or anyone having good knowledge of > >>> this to answer ... > >>> > >>> First question : page 14 of the PDF document, chapter 1.4 , states > >>> that it is not appropriate to use container pools in the case of NDMP > >>> backups. What is the reason for it ? My understanding is that it is > >>> possible to make use of NDMP without a tape based storage pool, thus I > >>> don't get the point here ... > >>> > >>> Second question : several references in the book are seeming to stress > >>> that one should make use of ONE SINGLE container storage pool for a > >>> whole TSM server (chapter 1.2.5.1.2 page 13, chapter 1.5.1 page 15). I > >>> do understand that deduplication is made at storage pool level, and > >>> that segregating backup data in several storage pools will weaken > >>> deduplication rates, but are there some other reasons which are not > >>> explained in the book, that would justify the use of only ONE > >>> container pool (like more hammering on the TSM DB during backup times > >>> if we make use of several storage pools, or others I did not think > >>> about) We plan to build a new TSM environment which will be based only > >>> on container storage pool(s ?), and I feel kind of uncomfortable to > >>> send all of my data in the same bucket (less granularity for > >>> reporting, auditing, protecting and so on ...). Does someone have > >>> arguments (pro or cons) or experience to share about this ? > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance for your feedback ! > >>> > >>> Cheers. > >>> > >>> Arnaud > >>> > >>> > > **************************************************************************** > >> ************************************************** > >>> Backup and Recovery Systems Administrator Panalpina Management Ltd., > >>> Basle, Switzerland, CIT Department Viadukstrasse 42, P.O. Box 4002 > >>> Basel/CH > >>> Phone: +41 (61) 226 11 11, FAX: +41 (61) 226 17 01 > >>> Direct: +41 (61) 226 19 78 > >>> e-mail: arnaud.br...@panalpina.com<mailto:arnaud.br...@panalpina.com > > >>> This electronic message transmission contains information from > >>> Panalpina and is confidential or privileged. This information is > >>> intended only for the person (s) named above. If you are not the > >>> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use or > >>> any other action based on the contents of this information is strictly > >>> prohibited. > >>> > >>> If you receive this electronic transmission in error, please notify > >>> the sender by e-mail, telephone or fax at the numbers listed above. > >> Thank you. > > **************************************************************************** > >> ************************************************** >
