==> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:40:41 -0700, Andrew Raibeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...I]nstead of having one onsite copy pool, why not just have two offsite > copy pools. Again, assess the risks: what are the odds that you will > actually need your copy storage pools in the event that a non-offsite > recovery is needed? If the odds are very low, then consider just having your > primary storage pools onsite, and if you need copy storage pool volumes, > retrieve them from the offsite location if and when that becomes necessary. I'd like to underscore this notion. We're planning along precisely these lines: Remote TSM server infrastructure, and "sufficiently" reliable network between (1Gb, with expansion available up to 10Gb), with the remote copy pools eventually being the only copy pools. I was initially thinking that I would still maintain a local copy pool, but my boss asked me, "If the network is good enough for DR, why isn't it good enough for a dropped tape?". ... Heh, felt dumb at that one. I'll probably still retain an extra, onsite copy of the TSM DB backups, but that's just normal paranoia. :) > The command line is your friend. Preach it, brother! - Allen S. Rout
