> > > Perhaps Tivoli TSM... > > Works, but is expensive. Also requires SCSI/FCP tape drives. > Assuming the TSM server is on Linux or on another distributed system. If > it's on z/OS, channel-attached drives work just fine.
Given the proportionally larger cost of the resources required, it seems unlikely that the cost case is viable for running TSM on z/OS compared to Linux. TSM can easily consume a complete physical CPU all by itself (and want more), and standard engine CPUs don't come cheaply, especially given the spike in z/OS-based licensing you'll enjoy by enabling that additional processor(s). It'd be interesting to think about whether the TSM database back end could be offloaded to z/OS. That might be an idea that would combine some interesting value to the z/OS and Linux combination. Another option might be a remote tape server on z/OS that had a Linux device driver, analogous to the capability on VSE (note: idea mine.). That'd be a generally attractive thing to have as well, especially if it also allowed a VM implementation. > An analysis of > the increased CPU requirements would have to be performed and weighed > against the costs of integration into your SCSI/FCP tape ecosystem (that > does assume you have one to integrate into!). Don't forget that those new drives won't be able to use your existing TMS and operations procedures on z/OS, and won't appear in your standard tape library management reports, so you'll need to invent additional tools to manage them. The people cost of "exceptions" are the killer here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
