y.
Than
H. Milton Johnson
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Sims
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: size of active vs. inactive?
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Johnson, Milton wrote:
> .
On Behalf Of
Richard Sims
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: size of active vs. inactive?
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Johnson, Milton wrote:
> ...Needless to say, I disagree with the statement that TSM doesn't
> appear
> to be a good f
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Johnson, Milton wrote:
...Needless to say, I disagree with the statement that TSM doesn't
appear
to be a good fit for a VTL. Remember a VTL is just a library that can
mount/unmount a tape in less than one second and read/write to the tape
at disk speeds. Why wouldn't
l with a library on steroids?
Thanks,
H. Milton Johnson
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David E Ehresman
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: size of active vs. inactive?
>>It has also been dis
be one upside of
these systems.
Curtis
David E Ehresman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/29/2004 02:42 PM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
Re: size
>>It has also been discussed several times that TSM doesn't appear to be
a
good fit for a VTL. May want to search the archives to find out more on
the
subject.<<
Has anyone heard of good experiences with TSM on a virtual tape
library? Can this ever be a good thing?
ssage-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: size of active vs. inactive?
==> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given a ta
On Nov 29, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Mike wrote:
Given a tape library and multiple different policies for data
storage, is there a simple (resource non-intensive) way to tell
how much storage (the size of) active files and how much
storage is used for inactive files? It is being discussed to
get a VTL and
==> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given a tape library and multiple different policies for data storage, is
> there a simple (resource non-intensive) way to tell how much storage (the
> size of) active files and how much storage is used for inactive files? It
Given a tape library and multiple different policies for data
storage, is there a simple (resource non-intensive) way to tell
how much storage (the size of) active files and how much
storage is used for inactive files? It is being discussed to
get a VTL and I'm thinking this should be sized 2*activ
10 matches
Mail list logo
