none
**** Survey on Tape Co-location/Optimization by the product team **** RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Greetings from the DPM Team!

     

     

    1.       Is separation of tape backups based on retention period a company/operations requirement?

    Example:
    There are multiple PGs with 3 backups each. The backups have retention ranges of 1 week, 1 month and 1 year respectively. Would you prefer having separate tapes for each retention range? i.e all weekly retentions will go to Tape1, monthly retentions will go to Tape2 and yearly retention will go to Tape3?

     

    2.       Would you like to group together PGs in sets for tape co-location. Example: if there are 5 PGs, one can have PG1 and PG2 to co-locate together,  PG3 and PG4 co-locate together and keep the rest non-co-located.

     

    Thanks,

     

     

     


    Pranay[MSFT] This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties and confers no rights.

    We are working on enhancing the customer experience for Tape Optimization/Tape Co-location feature of DPM. We request you to assist us by answering the following questions:-

     

    Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:03 AM

All replies

  • 1) I achive this at the moment by using radically different retention ranges. It would be nice to allocate tapes by size, or just specific tapes to certain groups. That way the larger protection groups would always get a higher capacity tape rather than span two smaller tapes.

    2) This would help avoid having to play with retention ranges, so all good.

    Chris

    Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:38 PM
  • 1.  I think the only way that makes sense is to group by retention range.  Otherwise, you could have a tape full of 1 week retention jobs and if a single 1 year retention job gets written to it through colocation, then the tape will not be reused for a year.  Even though this is an extreme example, mixing retention ranges could lead to many more tapes than you need.  As with most of the choices, having the granualarity to choose how to do this would be best.  Someone else might have a valid reason to mix retention ranges.

    2.  Having the ability to choose this might be good if you wanted to group specific servers or types of data together on tapes.

    Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:10 PM
  • As mentioned earlier I would also like to see more granularity available for managing tapes and the data and schedules on them.

    For example, make it possible to allocate a number of slots for a "tape group".

    For example:

    slot1 -- tape group 1
    slot2 -- tape group 1
    slot3 -- tape group 1
    slot4 -- tape group 1
    slot5 -- tape group 2
    slot6 -- tape group 2
    slot7 -- tape group 3
    slot8 -- tape group 3

    Here we should be able to select what data and what schedule we want on each tape group. This allows flexibility of the data that is on the tapes and allows much more granular tape management.

    So I should be able to add data into a tape group without having to use all of the tapes in the library so I only have specific data going onto specific tapes. 








    Microsoft Partner
    Monday, July 5, 2010 11:32 AM
  • 1. In normal operation I would expect Weekly PGs -> Weekly Tapes | Monthly PGs -> Monthly Tapes | Yearly PGs -> Yearly Tapes.

    This is usually because when the tape schedule is setup with the data vault company, the rotation schedule is different and on a per tape basis as you point out it is often also a direct company/op requirement of a customer when selling a backup solution.

    2. Custom co-location is an interesting idea, it may be needed for some, and may help with tape conservation in a few scenarios. There are a lot of other enhancements and features I'd like to see before custom co-lo

    Warm Regards,

    David

    Wednesday, July 7, 2010 8:56 AM
  • I would like also that it was possible to create different jobs for tapes only. So that I can specifiy what to put on the tape and what not.
    I have some very large backups in the clients which I don't want on tape. But this is only the D drive for example. No idea how to configure that the C goes to tape and the D drive not.
    Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:31 AM
  • Hi,

    I would like to make a set of tapes that are co-located, but the last day of the month, or the last Saturday of the month that set has a retention period that is forever. This is what we keep for an archive.

     

    We have a 6 months rotation of daily backups, but the end of month tapes stay in the vault forever and will only come back for a restore.

     

    Best wishes

     

    Michael

     

    Monday, July 19, 2010 9:13 PM
  • As mentioned earlier I would also like to see more granularity available for managing tapes and the data and schedules on them.

    For example, make it possible to allocate a number of slots for a "tape group".

    For example:

    slot1 -- tape group 1
    slot2 -- tape group 1
    slot3 -- tape group 1
    slot4 -- tape group 1
    slot5 -- tape group 2
    slot6 -- tape group 2
    slot7 -- tape group 3
    slot8 -- tape group 3

    Here we should be able to select what data and what schedule we want on each tape group. This allows flexibility of the data that is on the tapes and allows much more granular tape management.

    So I should be able to add data into a tape group without having to use all of the tapes in the library so I only have specific data going onto specific tapes. 







    Microsoft Partner


    I like this suggestion.

    We moved to DPM from Symantec and one thing I really liked about Symantec was the flexibility of the tape library and being able to "partition" the tapes off for different jobs. I would also like to be able to run conventional backups similar to Symantec where no retention range is specified and it just uses it till full then it goes offsite.

    Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:26 PM