Okay. The quote and your response were all run together in one paragraph so it wasn't clear that's what you were doing.
Brian Nielsen On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:20:33 -0700, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot e: >I was responding to the statement, "There probably are stand-alone versions of the other vendors' backup products," in the last append before mine. I was confirming that at least one vendor did have a stand- alone utility so those who use it do not need DDR for DR. > >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 2:13 PM >To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >Subject: Re: Feedback requested on proposed DDR requirements > >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]> wro t= >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 seem s= > = >> >>to strengthen it because standalone DDR wouldn't have access to whateve r= > = >> >>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 i n= > = >> >>case I misunderstood you. >> >>Brian Nielsen >>======================== = >======================== == >======================= >======================== ========================= =======================
