==> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:33:58 -0400, David E Ehresman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Uhh, how about for restore performance when it matters most, during a > disaster! I come down on the other side of this, myself. Biggest reason is, you just can't afford to collocate the offsites. Imagine sending one tape per node offsite, every day. If you've got some sort of long-haul fiber solution, and can expose the physical volume granularity at the remote site to your local server, then it would be very useful to collocate. So in your site-wide disaster, you are going to have a mishmash anyway. On the other hand, the media-failure case is much more common. In those cases, I find the noncollocated copy pool to be a reasonable price to pay for the savings in slots and tapes. All these calculations might be different with collocation groups; hopefully in a week or two I'll be considering that as a concrete problem. (chortle) - Allen S. Rout