Tim Hare wrote:
[...]
We're trying to evaluate switching to Tape Mount Management versus virtual
tape. This post is not about the pros or cons of doing it; rather we're
trying to analyze what some of the costs are.
[...]
That's the point. IMHO you *cannot* skip the proscons analysis. It's
I don't know if the rules of this list allow cost discussion - but I'm not
asking for specific numbers, and I'm trying to avoid being specific about
the vendor, so maybe it will slide?
We're trying to evaluate switching to Tape Mount Management versus virtual
tape. This post is not about the
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:24:32 -0400, Tim Hare wrote:
If anyone has actual cost figures for their virtual tape box separately,
could you give me a ballpark of what the ratio of the cost of the virtual
compontents to the tape components should be so I can do a sanity check on
what I'm hearing?
I'm
I started this analysis thinking a robotic tape library was the way to
go, but I've changed my mind. I can't see how anyone can justify
physical tape anymore.
Most virtual tape systems eventually write to physical tape as they
internally perform hierarchical storage management. There's an
Since we have the capacity on our DASD to provide
a disk buffer for the sequential datasets we
currently create on tape it's hard to see the benefit
of going to a virtual tape rather than just a
sequential dataset on disk.
Is your 'disk buffer' on your enterprise disk? If so, how much does
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:42:25 -0400, Tim Hare wrote:
Most virtual tape systems eventually write to physical tape as they
internally perform hierarchical storage management. There's an OS that
does HSM functions on a bunch of disk, and when the disk space gets full,
the datasets representing
6 matches
Mail list logo
