On 05/12/2013 01:14 PM, Jack Coats wrote:
IBM every few years seems to feel the need to change the billing method just to keep the market guessing about if things are 'legal' or not. Over the years I went thru several conversions of billing methods. The one I liked was pay for a license, and the server license was effectively free. In any case, technically I found it worked well and if we kept enough replicated copies off site, there was never a problem in getting restores done eventually even for DR testing.
That's what we've got now, and we'll stick with it as long as we can.
Never did like the number of tapes needed to do a full restore, but it always worked. I think I never found the right mix of backup groups vs clients.
This definitely has been a problem for us, although in some cases it can be an advantage. If you set MAXSESSIONS high enough for the client, you can get the client to start up multiple sessions and read off multiple tapes at once. It also helps hide the cost of load/seek/unload times.
Skylar
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
