LTO and 3590
Hello, I have read some archives about LTO vs 3590. I get mixed feelings about which is better depending on the situation. I would like to ask for your opinions on my specific case. Here are the facts: I am a TSM newbie 6 months. Current hardware is: 3494 w/2 3590E1A drives 3466-C00 w/H50 server 288gb SSA 7133-D40 We are needing to about double our current hardware (rough estimate) The additional backups will be 70/30 small file/large file (all from NT) The are 3 options on the table 1) add 3590EA1 drives (and additional frame) 2) add LTO drives (and whatever frame) 3) sell 3590 system and replace with LTO system My first thoughts are to just add 3590's. Been working fine for a year. I'm still gathering price info. but if cost was basically the same what would you do? I don't think cost will be significantly less for any of the three. Maybe I'm wrong. Advantages/disadvantages to these options? If cost were much lower for LTO would you go with it? If complete LTO replacement, would data migration off 3590 be a nightmare? Also, I don't really need fast restore times Thanks for any advice David
Re: LTO and 3590
David, Lisa is exactly right! We decided to save some money and go with LTO, but research shows that the 3590 would have been MUCH better. Don't get me wrong - the LTO technology outperforms even the new Super DLT - and blows the old DLT's away. But if you already have 3590e's in house, you'll be disappointed if you go with anything less. Thank you, Jeff Caffey Enterprise Systems Programmer (AIX Storage Administrator) Pier 1 imports, Inc. - Information Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (817) 252-6222 Fax: (817) 252-7299 -Original Message- From: Lisa Cabanas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: LTO and 3590 David- For what it's worth, we just went through an eval of which to expand to and decided to go with the Cadillac-- the 3590. For thruput, it will beat LTO hands down, due to the stopping and starting technology on the drives. We archive Oracle data thru an SP switch, and we get rates of 40MB/sec. Go with the addt'nl frame on the 3494 the 3590E drives. Another thing to think about, is that 1Q 2002, half-height 3590 drives are supposed to be available, if you can wait that long. lisa David DeCuir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/2001 10:16 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Lisa Cabanas/SC/MODOT) Subject:LTO and 3590 Hello, I have read some archives about LTO vs 3590. I get mixed feelings about which is better depending on the situation. I would like to ask for your opinions on my specific case. Here are the facts: I am a TSM newbie 6 months. Current hardware is: 3494 w/2 3590E1A drives 3466-C00 w/H50 server 288gb SSA 7133-D40 We are needing to about double our current hardware (rough estimate) The additional backups will be 70/30 small file/large file (all from NT) The are 3 options on the table 1) add 3590EA1 drives (and additional frame) 2) add LTO drives (and whatever frame) 3) sell 3590 system and replace with LTO system My first thoughts are to just add 3590's. Been working fine for a year. I'm still gathering price info. but if cost was basically the same what would you do? I don't think cost will be significantly less for any of the three. Maybe I'm wrong. Advantages/disadvantages to these options? If cost were much lower for LTO would you go with it? If complete LTO replacement, would data migration off 3590 be a nightmare? Also, I don't really need fast restore times Thanks for any advice David
Re: LTO and 3590
The 3590's are the better drives... (how many LTO drives do you see in MVS environments ?) and especially if you have the E drives ! We are still running on 5 year old B1A's (have about 40 or 50 of them around...) the tsm environments take in a total of 2 TB nightly (on average) In 5 years (best I can remember) there have been 10, maybe 15 tapes go bad where I couldn't (easily) get the data off them (includes being eaten by the drive). On all of those (except one) the data naturally expired without being requested. On that one exception, a .dbf file was required, they retrieved it from an earlier version and used redo logs to bring it back to the state they needed... So in short... In 5 years, all the clients here have experienced ZERO data loss with the 3590's ! just my personal experiences... Dwight -Original Message- From: David DeCuir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LTO and 3590 Hello, I have read some archives about LTO vs 3590. I get mixed feelings about which is better depending on the situation. I would like to ask for your opinions on my specific case. Here are the facts: I am a TSM newbie 6 months. Current hardware is: 3494 w/2 3590E1A drives 3466-C00 w/H50 server 288gb SSA 7133-D40 We are needing to about double our current hardware (rough estimate) The additional backups will be 70/30 small file/large file (all from NT) The are 3 options on the table 1) add 3590EA1 drives (and additional frame) 2) add LTO drives (and whatever frame) 3) sell 3590 system and replace with LTO system My first thoughts are to just add 3590's. Been working fine for a year. I'm still gathering price info. but if cost was basically the same what would you do? I don't think cost will be significantly less for any of the three. Maybe I'm wrong. Advantages/disadvantages to these options? If cost were much lower for LTO would you go with it? If complete LTO replacement, would data migration off 3590 be a nightmare? Also, I don't really need fast restore times Thanks for any advice David
Re: LTO and 3590
There is a presentation on the Tivoli website comparing 3590, 9840, LTO, and DLT. http://www.tivoli.com/news/press/analyst/tsm.pdf I agree with Jeff Dwight; if you are used to 3590, consider that LTO is a competitor to DLT, not a competitor to the 3590. I would base the decision on load: If your load is less than 20 GB per night, 3590 may be overkill and LTO might provide a less expensive alternative. But the larger your load gets, the more abuse your media gets and the more you need the big iron (If you do decide to migrate, it's not a big deal. You can do it real time. Hook up the new library to your TSM server. Define new tape storage pools, and point your management classes or disk migration to the new tape storage pools. Then just start running MOVE DATA from your old tape volumes to your new tape pools. Backups will continue while it's going on. If you need a restore in the meantime, TSM will find the data and mount whichever tapes it needs. When the old tapes are all empty, remove the old robot.) Wanda Prather The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab 443-778-8769 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think - Scott Adams/Dilbert -Original Message- From: Caffey, Jeff L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LTO and 3590 David, Lisa is exactly right! We decided to save some money and go with LTO, but research shows that the 3590 would have been MUCH better. Don't get me wrong - the LTO technology outperforms even the new Super DLT - and blows the old DLT's away. But if you already have 3590e's in house, you'll be disappointed if you go with anything less. Thank you, Jeff Caffey Enterprise Systems Programmer (AIX Storage Administrator) Pier 1 imports, Inc. - Information Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (817) 252-6222 Fax: (817) 252-7299 -Original Message- From: Lisa Cabanas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: LTO and 3590 David- For what it's worth, we just went through an eval of which to expand to and decided to go with the Cadillac-- the 3590. For thruput, it will beat LTO hands down, due to the stopping and starting technology on the drives. We archive Oracle data thru an SP switch, and we get rates of 40MB/sec. Go with the addt'nl frame on the 3494 the 3590E drives. Another thing to think about, is that 1Q 2002, half-height 3590 drives are supposed to be available, if you can wait that long. lisa David DeCuir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/2001 10:16 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Lisa Cabanas/SC/MODOT) Subject:LTO and 3590 Hello, I have read some archives about LTO vs 3590. I get mixed feelings about which is better depending on the situation. I would like to ask for your opinions on my specific case. Here are the facts: I am a TSM newbie 6 months. Current hardware is: 3494 w/2 3590E1A drives 3466-C00 w/H50 server 288gb SSA 7133-D40 We are needing to about double our current hardware (rough estimate) The additional backups will be 70/30 small file/large file (all from NT) The are 3 options on the table 1) add 3590EA1 drives (and additional frame) 2) add LTO drives (and whatever frame) 3) sell 3590 system and replace with LTO system My first thoughts are to just add 3590's. Been working fine for a year. I'm still gathering price info. but if cost was basically the same what would you do? I don't think cost will be significantly less for any of the three. Maybe I'm wrong. Advantages/disadvantages to these options? If cost were much lower for LTO would you go with it? If complete LTO replacement, would data migration off 3590 be a nightmare? Also, I don't really need fast restore times Thanks for any advice David
Re: LTO versus 3590
Hi Paul! I don't know anything about AIT. We are currently using 3570 because of it's fast data access times, but we need a larger library. Since we are already using the largest one (3575-L32) our only option was to use more libraries. Not something you would like to do in a TSM configuration. We narrowed the choices down to two, 3590 and LTO. 3590 because it's compatible with our OS/390 environment, should we want to integrate in the future, and LTO because it's an open architecture. We choose for 3590 because little was known about LTO about a year ago. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon -Original Message- From: Paul Zarnowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 20:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LTO versus 3590 At 01:32 PM 2/7/2001 +0100, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote: ... the LTO start/stop characteristics are something to take in consideration. Data on a 100 GB. volume can (and will) be scattered across the tape, so when you are restoring a lot of data, you will see long seek times. We choose for 3590 over LTO for this reason. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon Eric, Do you know anything about AIT's start/stop characteristics? Did you consider AIT before making your decision to go with 3590? ..Paul ** This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: LTO versus 3590
Hi Luc! You are talking about full volumes restore. Are planning to use the LTO library for your copy pool? If so, LTO is very usable. Since a volume restore is typically a streaming process, your volume restores will be quite fast. LTO for a primary tape pool will be quite a different story. Indeed the LTO start/stop characteristics are something to take in consideration. Data on a 100 GB. volume can (and will) be scattered across the tape, so when you are restoring a lot of data, you will see long seek times. We choose for 3590 over LTO for this reason. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon -Original Message- From: Verellen, Luc [NCSBE] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 16:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LTO versus 3590 Hello, We're in the process of configuring a new TSM server in an offsite location, and we need to decide on the tape technology that we're going to use. Some information on our backup mechanism : we do use collocation, and use incremental forever (we never take full backups). Some of our file servers are huge, and contain 500.000 - 1.000.000 files. LTO seems to be a very good solution (data rate, capacity,...) but I am afraid that the "streaming" effect (instead of the 3590 start/stop) will cause full volume restores to take forever. Is there anyone who want to share some information on the tradeoff between start/stop and streaming versus price? Thanks, Luc. Luc Verellen Johnson Johnson Beerse/Belgium ** This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. **
Re: LTO versus 3590
At 01:32 PM 2/7/2001 +0100, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM wrote: ... the LTO start/stop characteristics are something to take in consideration. Data on a 100 GB. volume can (and will) be scattered across the tape, so when you are restoring a lot of data, you will see long seek times. We choose for 3590 over LTO for this reason. Kindest regards, Eric van Loon Eric, Do you know anything about AIT's start/stop characteristics? Did you consider AIT before making your decision to go with 3590? ..Paul
LTO versus 3590
Hello, We're in the process of configuring a new TSM server in an offsite location, and we need to decide on the tape technology that we're going to use. Some information on our backup mechanism : we do use collocation, and use incremental forever (we never take full backups). Some of our file servers are huge, and contain 500.000 - 1.000.000 files. LTO seems to be a very good solution (data rate, capacity,...) but I am afraid that the "streaming" effect (instead of the 3590 start/stop) will cause full volume restores to take forever. Is there anyone who want to share some information on the tradeoff between start/stop and streaming versus price? Thanks, Luc. Luc Verellen Johnson Johnson Beerse/Belgium
