I'm not sure how that is any help to sites which depend on DDR. Brian Nielsen
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:09:48 -0700, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot e: >There probably are stand-alone versions of the other vendors' backup products. There is for CA's VM:Backup Hidro. > >Regards, >Richard Schuh > > -----Original Message----- >From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen >Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:06 PM >To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >Subject: Re: Feedback requested on proposed DDR requirements > >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:37:07 -0400, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = > >wrote: > >>My comment would be to move the actual tape handling part out of DDR >>entirely and let the data storage be handled by something else, eg a >>pipe connecting to the input or output of the DDR engine. Then it >>wouldn't matter how we were storing the data, and all the positioning >>stuff could be out in user space, so DDR wouldn't need to know or care. = > >> >>Then we wouldn't need CMSDDR any more. >> >>-- db > >I don't see how that removes the need for CMS DDR. If anything it seems = > >to strengthen it because standalone DDR wouldn't have access to whatever = > >is doing the tape handling. I don't think you meant we wouldn't need >standalone DDR because that will always be needed as a last resort for = > >when CMS is not available, and therefore it has to be able to read what = > >CMS DDR wrote. This requires the media handling function to be part of = > >standalone DDR, which seems contrary to your comment. Please clarify in = > >case I misunderstood you. > >Brian Nielsen >======================== ========================= =======================
