Good questions: We are currently working on a project that is using ProtectTIER. The ProtectTIER 7650G is does dedup. It looks like a TS3500 w LTO drive. We will be getting another 7650G at a second data center. The idea is to to cross-replicate between data centers.
-----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of robert_clark Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:34 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool The elephants in the room: It is tempting, once DD gets in the door, to move all database backups (the typical TDP/RMAN and SQLLiteSpeed stuff) to go directly to DD. (No TSM involved, so save money on licenses?) Combinations that have more advanced communications with the back end storage (OST / Boost / Avarmar+DD) may be able to get hints about what is already stored on the dedupe device? Seems unlikey that TSM will gain any features like this any time soon. (NDMP? VTL? these feature are pretty dated.) Is TSM 6 not losing data via dedupe this week? How problematic is "many TB of data on fileclass on file systems" when it comes time to do a fsck after a system crash? [RC] On Sep 27, 2011, at 03:06 PM, "Prather, Wanda" <wprat...@icfi.com> wrote: Actually I have more customers using Data Domains without the VTL license than with it. With a Windows TSM server, you can just write to it via TCP/IP using a CIFS share(NFS mount with an AIX TSM server). If you have sufficient TCP/IP bandwidth for your load, no fibre connections needed. >From the TSM point of view, you configure it as a file pool. You get the benefits of dedup and (if you have a 2nd one at your DR site) replication. Neither good or bad, just different. Very simple setup, works great if it meets your throughput requirements. W -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Daniel Sparrman Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:49 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool The fact you actually need to pay a "VTL license" is just plain scary. When u bought it, did they think you're gonna use it as a fileserver? I'm not to specialized into Data Domain, but arent they marketed as backup hardware? So you get a disk, but if you want to use it for something else than that, you need to pay a license? Sorry for sounding bitter, but I've always heard people referring to Data Domain as a VTL. Daniel Sparrman Exist i Stockholm AB Växel: 08-754 98 00 Fax: 08-754 97 30 daniel.sparr...@exist.se http://www.existgruppen.se Posthusgatan 1 761 30 NORRTÄLJE -----"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> skrev: ----- Till: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Från: "Allen S. Rout" <a...@ufl.edu> Sänt av: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> Datum: 09/27/2011 18:55 Ärende: Re: [ADSM-L] Ang: Re: [ADSM-L] vtl versus file systems for pirmary pool On 09/27/2011 12:02 PM, Rick Adamson wrote: > The bigger question I have is since the file based storage is > native to TSM why exactly is using a file based storage > not supported? Not supported by what? If you've got a DD, then the simplest way to connect it to TSM is via files. Some backup apps require something that looks like a library, in which case you'd be buying the VTL license. FWIW, if you're already in DD space, you're paying a pretty penny. The VTL license isn't chicken feed, I agree, but it's not a major component of the total cost. - Allen S. Rout