There is no panacea for a NBU admin in a TSM environment. It is a completely different mindset.
When we decided to go with TSM we also evaluated NBU. In our environment, TSM turned out to be more cost effective. It was an extreme learning curve and I wasn't thrilled, but in the long run it worked out very well. -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of ego3456 Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:08 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: NBU guy in TSM shop and I need help wow, so it really is as clear as mud.. :D my assumption of the retention taking that many tapes was understood by me to be a function of not only the shelf life (retention) but the reclamation (no we don't use collocation, which I'm well aware we should) shotgunning those data bits across a large number of tapes; if all this is true, without a large increase in tape library capacity (we have 252 slots) or a large increase in disk resources, is there an easy way to fix it? If not, I'm inclined to scrap it all and put in NBU for backups going forward. saving the argument on which is better, I'm an NBU guy and a staff of one, and my inclination is if I'm spending buckets of cash, I'm doing it in a way I'm familiar. My first whack though is to try and save this thing so I'm hoping someone out there can provide a panacea or at least an incremental improvement that is free and time efficient. am i spitting in to the wind? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by ericgosn...@gmail.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +----------------------------------------------------------------------