First and foremost, the support for arcserv is lousy at best - and trust me
you need support. CA has long been known for disappearing after the contract
is signed. When we finally got to the point where we demanded that CA come
on-site to get the product working three things happened:
1. We found out that everything was installed correctly.
2. It took their own engineers several days to figure out how to install the
fixes they recommended.
3. A considerable amount of data (months) was lost.
Tape management is more difficult, and less efficient, and not automated.
No incremental forever.
Very limited versioning and retention capabilities.
Is the support for Tivoli any better? Maybe, maybe not. The thing is I have
needed very little support since it was brought up, and the procedures for
updating the code are fairly intuitive.
Need more?
Cory
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Scott G Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tivoli vs Arcserve 2000
I know that I probably should do this, but I can't help myself.
I am trying (or being forced to)defend my decision to use Tivoli over
Arcserve. What are my reasons again? I have been pitching Tivoli and
rolling it out with goos success to a Netware and NT environment that
consists os about 4TB of data over about 85 nodes. Everything was good
untill I got to Exchange 2000 and everybody wanted message level restore
like Arcserve and Commvault. Also Microsoft has a bug that of course
only affects Tivoli (memory leak). If it sounds like I am wining then I
probably am.
I guess my question is... does anyone have any pros or cons for Tivoli
over Arcserve? My Exchange environment is a two server cluster on a
Compaq SAN. It has two storage groups right now one at 127g and the
other at 192g. There are plans to break them out into smaller stores
(around 50g each).
Any help in the form of suggestions would be helpfull.
thank you
Scott Davis
