> I want to create a set of backup tapes for disaster recovery that would > only have the most recent versions of my files, I do not want all the > extra versions.
Assuming you move data offsite with the same period as you do backups (e.g., daily), you are churning the same amount of data each day. You do keep fewer tapes at the "vault", but what is the cost differential? (It depends on your retention policies). I've often wondered the same thing: why doesn't *SM allow us a "compromised" copypool with only active files in it? The answer is probably IBM hasn't seen sufficient business case to add it to the product. In addition, I think there are real risks in having no older versions available (when the *SM site turns to dust or mud). First, presumably you keep older versions because you have a perceived business need for it. Given that you're probably writing and transporting the same number of tapes, the increased cost of additional tapes and tape storage may be small. Second, needs are high and alternatives are in short supply in times of disaster. Having more than just active files offsite may be very valuable. From my experience, many client disaster recoveries make use of point-in-time restores, where one might have thought simply restoring active files would have been sufficient. Hope this helps, or at least fuels the discussion, wayne Wayne T. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADSM Technical Coordinator - UNET University of Maine System