-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pinnacle Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:28 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: V2X2 vs. Shark (SnapShot v. FlashCopy)
My current client has a V2X2 and is thinking about replacing it with a Shark. SnapShot is used to snap 600 volumes in about 5-10 minutes. The physical tape backups are done from the snaps and take about 8 hours. This DR process is fully tested and works great. My main concern if we replace the V2X2 with the Shark is the DR process. Has FlashCopy improved to the point that you can make a point in time backup and physically move it to tape later? And can you FlashCopy the entire box in a few minutes? If not, the DR process for this client is going to get much more complicated. PPRC or XRC are not options due to cost. Let me know your thoughts. <snip> What you describe is exactly what I did for a client in Columbus OH. They had a Shark for their mainframe. We flashed as soon as the batch cycle ended and then did the full volume copies to tape (2 copies) (one for on site and one for offsite). As I recall, Backups of the flash copies started between 5a-6a and finished by 9AM. 3390-3s and 3490 with "oreos". I've forgotten how many 3490 units and how many DASD units. Oh yeah, and D/R tests worked the first time, every time. Later, Steve Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
