Russell Witt wrote:
Too bad that they still leave all their virtual-tape clients hanging in the
wind however.
Tape drive encryption is really cool, why some many of us complain on
it? Nobody said it solve all our problems.
One has a choice:
- use necryption at the drive level: fast, secure, convenient
- use software tools like Encryption Facility: slower, but secure and
could be convenient (DSS "plug")
- use RYO application with or without ICSF
- do nothing. Stay unencrypted, like 10 years ago.
- do nothing and complain.
- wait for virtual drives with encryption (optionally still complain and
do nothing)
For a large shop that is used to 50-100 virtual-drives online
doing work in parallel with 8 physical drives in the back-ground stacking
all the data together they now have the choice (?) of going out and buying
50-100 physical drives (which would also mean an additional number of
robot's or additional operator head-count). Or they could just slow-down the
batch work and not run so much in parallel. What a choice.
It is also possible to change the application. Get rid of old stinking
tape DDnames with 50MB datasets. Use DASD instead. Exploit TMM, HSM,
ML1&2. The need for virtual tapes will also decrease.
It's time to wake up and refresh the mainframe dino a little bit.
Tapes are for backup (and partially DR), remote copy is for DR, DASD is
for data processing (batch), communication links are for data interchange.
My $0.02
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
