Joel wrote on 03/08/2005 12:32:05 PM: > Has anyone else out there looked at the overhead of encrypting all > tapes, which seems to be the approach some are advocating? The obvious > problem from the standpoint of efficiency is that good encryption of the > data, which destroys apparent patterns in the data, will make tape > hardware compression perform poorly. It seems at present that if one > wants to do tape encryption under MVS, you are also pretty much also > forced to also do data compression (first) to avoid tripling the amount > of physical tape required. You incur not only the CP overhead of of the > encryption, but that of compression as well.
Haven't looked into it, but seems a can of worms. As well as all the overhead issues, what about; - DR, - all those warehouses full of tapes/carts you have (currently unencrypted), - DASD, - data going in/out to terminals, - third parties you need to send data to ... We had a small roadshow from IBM yesterday on the z9 - part of this concentrated on encryption requirements. This is obviously a hot button - Terri (I believe her name was) basically said "watch this space - we are onto it". Doesn't help now, and may not help non-z9 customers in the future; who knows. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
