Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior IT Architect for the IBM Storage product line at the
IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona, and featured contributor
to IBM's developerWorks. In 2016, Tony celebrates his 30th year anniversary with IBM Storage. He is
author of the Inside System Storage series of books. This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to storage and storage networking hardware, software and services.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson )
My books are available on Lulu.com! Order your copies today!
Safe Harbor Statement: The information on IBM products is intended to outline IBM's general product direction and it should not be relied on in making a purchasing decision. The information on the new products is for informational purposes only and may not be incorporated into any contract. The information on IBM products is not a commitment, promise, or legal obligation to deliver any material, code, or functionality. The development, release, and timing of any features or functionality described for IBM products remains at IBM's sole discretion.
Tony Pearson is a an active participant in local, regional, and industry-specific interests, and does not receive any special payments to mention them on this blog.
Tony Pearson receives part of the revenue proceeds from sales of books he has authored listed in the side panel.
Tony Pearson is not a medical doctor, and this blog does not reference any IBM product or service that is intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment, cure, prevention or monitoring of a disease or medical condition, unless otherwise specified on individual posts.
IBM had over a dozen storage-related announcements this week. This is my third and final part in my series to provide a quick overview of the announcements.
IBM Tivoli® Storage Manager v6.3
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager is market-leading software that provides not just backup, but also HSM and archive capabilities across a wide variety of operating systems. Originally developed in the IBM Almaden Research Center, it then moved about 15 years ago to Tucson to become a commercial product.
The new TSM v6.3 introduces site-to-site hot-standby disaster recovery feature that replicates the TSM meta data and data for fast recovery. The maximum number of objects supported has doubled to four billion. Reporting has been enhanced using technologies borrowed from IBM Cognos. Lastly, a feature on Tivoli Storage Productivity Center has been carried forward to deploy and update agents on the various clients.
IBM Tivoli Storage FlashCopy Manager coordinates application-aware backups through the use of point-in-time copy services such as FlashCopy or Snapshot on various IBM and non-IBM disk systems. The versions can remain on disk, or optionally processed by Tivoli Storage Manager to move them to external storage such as tape for added protection.
There will always be a spot in my heart for this product, as the method to use FlashCopy for application-aware backups on the mainframe was my 19th patent, and subsequently delivered as a series of enhancements to DFSMS over the past decade on the z/OS operating system. It is good to see this innovation has "jumped over" to distributed systems.
The new FlashCopy Manager v3.1 adds support for HP-UX and VMware, expands support for IBM DB2 and Oraqcle databases, and introduces an interface for custom business applications.
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Virtual Environments v6.3
TSM for VE is a new addition to the TSM family, focused on being able to coordinate hypervisor-aware data protection. Initially it supports VMware, but IBM has plans to support a variety of other server virtualization hypervisors as well, as over 40 percent of companies run two or more hypervisors in their data center.
The new TSM for VE v6.3 adds a VMware vCenter plug-in, and support for hardware-based disk snapshots.
IBM Tivoli Storage Productivity Center v4.2.2
A long time ago, I was the chief architect IBM Tivoli Storage Productivity Center v1, now we are already up to v4.2.2 release!
IBM has added enhanced reporting based on IBM Cognos technology, including storage tiering analysis reports (STAR). Few companies keep all of their storage tiers in a single disk system. Rather, they have different boxes, and often from different vendors. IBM's Productivity Center can report on both IBM and non-IBM disk systems. New this release is support for the internal disks of the Storwize V7000 midrange disk system.
Productivity Center's "SAN Planner" has been enhanced to consider XIV replication criteria. This SAN Planner helps clients decide where to carve LUNs, and to make sure they pick the right place given all of the criteria such as remote copy replications.
Last year, we introduced Productivity Center for Disk Midrange Edition (MRE) which to offer lower price when you are only managing midrange disk systems DS5000, DS3000, Storwize V7000 and SVC managing these. This was so successful, that we now have TPC Select, which is basically Productivity Center Standard Edition (SE) for these midrange disk systems.
Whew! I have already heard from some of my readers to slow down, that this is too much information to deal with all at once. IBM has tried everything from having just a few announcements nearly every Tuesday, to having huge launches every two to three years, and settled in the middle with announcements about four to five times per year.
In keeping with the spirit to be a more kinder, gentler 2011, I decided last week to refrain from being the rain on someone else's parade that occurs immediately before, during or after a competitor's announcement or annual conference, and let EMC have their few moments in the spotlight last week. This of course allows me more time to learn about the announcements and reflect on marketplace reactions. Here's a quick look at the [EMC Press Release]:
A new VNXe disk system
Of the 41 new storage technologies and products EMC announced last week, the VNXe is EMC's "me-too" product to compete against other low-end disk systems like the IBM System Storage DS3524 and N3000 series. It looks truly new, developed organically from the ground up, with a new architecture, new OS. It comes in either the 2U-high VNXe3100 or the 3U-high VNXe3300. These employ 3.5-inch SAS drives to provide Ethernet-based NFS, CIFS and iSCSI host attachment. The $10K USD price tag appears to be for the hardware only. As is typical for EMC, they charge software features in bundles or "suites", so the actual TCO will be much higher. I have not seen any announcements whether Dell plans to resell either the VNXe nor the VNX models, now that they have acquired Compellent.
A new VNX disk system
Despite having a similar name as the VNXe, the VNX appears to be a re-hash of the Celerra/CLARiiON mess that EMC has been selling already, based on the old FLARE and DART operating systems of these older disk systems. This scales from 75 to 1000 SAS drives. While EMC calls the VNX "unified", it currently is only available in block-only and file-only models, with a future promise from EMC that they will offer a combined block-and-file version sometime in the future. EMC claims that the VNX will be faster than the predecessors, so hopefully that means EMC has joined the rest of the planet and will publish SPC-1 and SPC-2 benchmarks to back up that claim. They can compare against the SPC-1 benchmarks that our friends at NetApp ran against EMC CLARiiON.
New software for the VMAX
A long time ago, EMC announced they would provide non-disruptive automated tiering. Their first delivery "FAST V1" handled entire LUNs at a time. EMC now has finally "FAST VP" which we expected was going to be called "FAST V2", which provides sub-LUN automated tiering between Solid-state and spinning disk drives.. Meanwhile, IBM has been delivering "Easy Tier" on the IBM System Storage DS8000 series, SAN Volume Controller, and Storwize V7000 disk systems.
Data Domain Archiver
Competing against IBM, HP and Oracle in the tape arena, EMC's latest addition to the Data Domain family is designed for the long-term retention of backups? Archives of backups? Backups are short-lived, protecting against the unexpected loss from hardware failure or data corruption. Keeping backups as "archives" is generally a bad mistake, as it makes it hard to e-Discover the data you need when you need it, and may not have the appropriate hardware tor restore these old backups when you do find them.
I will have to dig deeper into all of these different technologies in separate posts in the future.
Continuing my coverage of the Data Center 2010 conference, Tuesday morning I attended several sessions. The first was a serious IT discussion with Mazen Rawashdeh, Technology Executive from eBay, and the second was a lighthearted review of the benefits from Cloud Computing from humorist Dave Barry, and the third focused on re-architecting backup strategies.
eBay – How One Fast Growing Company is Solving its Infrastructure and Data Center Challenges
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." -- Charles Darwin
So far, this has been the best session I have attended. eBay operates in 32 countries in seven languages, helping 90 million users to buy or sell 245 million items in 50,000 categories. Let's start with some statistics of the volume of traffic that eBay handles:
$2000 traded every second
cell phone sold every six seconds
pair of shoes sold every nine seconds
a major appliance sold every minute
93 billion database actions every day
50 TB of daily ingested daily
code changes to the eBay application are rolled in every day
In 2007, eBay discovered a disturbing trend, that infrastructure costs matched linear growth to business listing volume, which was an unsustainable model. Mazen Rawashdeh, eBay Marketplace Technology Operations, presented their strategy to break free from this problem. They want to double the number of listings without doubling their costs. They are 2 years into their 4 year plan:
Switched from expensive 12U high servers consuming 3 Kilowatts over to open source software on commodity 1-2U server hardware. Mazen owns all the costs from cement floor up to the web server.
Replaced team-optimized key performance indicators (KPI) with a common KPI. The server team focused on transactions per minute. The storage team was focused on utilization. The network team was focused on MB/sec bandwidth. The problem is that changes to optimize one might have negative impact to other teams. The new KPI was "Watts per listing" that allowed all teams to focus on a common goal.
Focused on changing the corporate culture for communicating clear measurable goals so that everyone understands the why and how of this new KPI. You have to spend money to save money in the long run. Consider costs at least 36 months out.
Changed from purchasing servers and depreciating them over 3 years to a lease model with server replacement tech refresh every 18 months. It is a bad idea to keep IT equipment after full depreciation, as energy savings alone on new equipment easily justifies 18-month replacement.
Adopted storage tiers. Storage is purchased not leased because it is more difficult to swap out disk arrays. They have 10-40 PB of disk. They do not use traditional backup, but rather use disk replication across distant locations. They are quick to delete or archive data that does not belong on their production systems.
Their results so far? They have reduced the Watts per listing by 70 percent over the past two years. They were able to double their volume with a relatively flat IT budget.
The Wit and Wisdom of Dave Barry, Humorist and Author
Dave Barry is a humor columnist. For 25 years he was a syndicated columnist whose work appeared in more than 500 newspapers in the United States and abroad, including the [Funny Times] that I subscribe to. In 1988 he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary about the election and politics in general. Dave has also written a total of 30 books, of which two of his books were used as the basis for the CBS TV sitcom "Dave's World," in which Harry Anderson played a much taller version of Dave.
I first met Dave about ten years ago at a SHARE conference in Minneapolis, MN. It was good to see him again.
Backup and Beyond
The analyst covered the "Three C's" of backup: cost, capability and complexity. There are many ways to implement backup, and he predicts that 30 percent of all companies will re-evaluate and re-architect their backup strategy, or at least change their backup software, by 2014 to address these three issues. Another survey indicates that 43 percent of companies are considering backup the primary reason they are investigating public cloud service providers.
The top three primary backup software vendors for the audience were Symantec, IBM, and Commvault. An interactive poll of the audience offered some insight:
There appears to be shift away from using disk to emulate tape (Virtual Tape Library) and instead use direct disk interfaces.
Some of the recommended actions were:
Exploit backup software features. On average, people keep 11 versions of backup, try cutting this down to four versions. IBM Tivoli Storage Manager allows this to be done via management class policies.
Implement a separate archive. Once data is archived and backed up, it reduces the backup load of production systems. Any chance to backup semi-static data less frequently will help.
Switch to capacity-based pricing which will allow more flexibility on server options to run backup software.
Implement data deduplication and compression, such as with IBM ProtecTIER data deduplication solution.
Consider a tiered recovery approach, where less critical applications have less backup protection. Many keep 1-2 years of backups, but 90 percent of all recoveries are for backups from the most recent 27 days. Reduce backup retention to 90 days.
Consider adopting a "Unified Recovery Management" strategy that protects laptops and desktops, remote office and branch offices, mission critical applications, and provide for business continuity and disaster recovery.
regularly test your recovery to validate your procedures and assumptions of your recoverability.
While the conference is divided into seven major tracks, it quickly becomes obvious that many of these IT datacenter issues overlap, and that approaches and decisions in one area can easily impact other areas.
It's Tuesday, and that means more IBM announcements!
I haven't even finished blogging about all the other stuff that got announced last week, and here we are with more announcements. Since IBM's big [Pulse 2010 Conference] is next week, I thought I would cover this week's announcement on Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) v6.2 release. Here are the highlights:
Client-Side Data Deduplication
This is sometimes referred to as "source-side" deduplication, as storage admins can get confused on which servers are clients in a TSM client-server deployment. The idea is to identify duplicates at the TSM client node, before sending to the TSM server. This is done at the block level, so even files that are similar but not identical, such as slight variations from a master copy, can benefit. The dedupe process is based on a shared index across all clients, and the TSM server, so if you have a file that is similar to a file on a different node, the duplicate blocks that are identical in both would be deduplicated.
This feature is available for both backup and archive data, and can also be useful for archives using the IBM System Storage Archive Manager (SSAM) v6.2 interface.
Simplified management of Server virtualization
TSM 6.2 improves its support of VMware guests by adding auto-discovery. Now, when you spontaneously create a new virtual machine OS guest image, you won't have to tell TSM, it will discover this automatically! TSM's legendary support of VMware Consolidated Backup (VCB) now eliminates the manual process of keeping track of guest images. TSM also added support of the Vstorage API for file level backup and recovery.
While IBM is the #1 reseller of VMware, we also support other forms of server virtualization. In this release, IBM adds support for Microsoft Hyper-V, including support using Microsoft's Volume Shadow Copy Services (VSS).
Automated Client Deployment
Do you have clients at all different levels of TSM backup-archive client code deployed all over the place? TSM v6.2 can upgrade these clients up to the latest client level automatically, using push technology, from any client running v5.4 and above. This can be scheduled so that only certain clients are upgraded at a time.
Simultaneous Background Tasks
The TSM server has many background administrative tasks:
Migration of data from one storage pool to another, based on policies, such as moving backups and archives on a disk pool over to a tape pools to make room for new incoming data.
Storage pool backup, typically data on a disk pool is copied to a tape pool to be kept off-site.
Copy active data. In TSM terminology, if you have multiple backup versions, the most recent version is called the active version, and the older versions are called inactive. TSM can copy just the active versions to a separate, smaller disk pool.
In previous releases, these were done one at a time, so it could make for a long service window. With TSM v6.2, these three tasks are now run simultaneously, in parallel, so that they all get done in less time, greatly reducing the server maintenance window, and freeing up tape drives for incoming backup and archive data. Often, the same file on a disk pool is going to be processed by two or more of these scheduled tasks, so it makes sense to read it once and do all the copies and migrations at one time while the data is in buffer memory.
Enhanced Security during Data Transmission
Previous releases of TSM offered secure in-flight transmission of data for Windows and AIX clients. This security uses Secure Socket Layer (SSL) with 256-bit AES encryption. With TSM v6.2, this feature is expanded to support Linux, HP-UX and Solaris.
Improved support for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) applications
I remember back when we used to call these TDPs (Tivoli Data Protectors). TSM for ERP allows backup of ERP applications, seemlessly integrating with database-specific tools like IBM DB2, Oracle RMAN, and SAP BR*Tools. This allows one-to-many and many-to-one configurations between SAP servers and TSM servers. In other words, you can have one SAP server backup to several TSM servers, or several SAP servers backup to a single TSM server. This is done by splitting up data bases into "sub-database objects", and then process each object separately. This can be extremely helpful if you have databases over 1TB in size. In the event that backing up an object fails and has to be re-started, it does not impact the backup of the other objects.
In his Backup Blog, fellow blogger Scott Waterhouse from EMC has yet another post about Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) titled [TSM and the Elephant]. He argues that only the cost of new TSM servers should be considered in any comparison, on the assumption that if you have to deploy another server, you have to attach to it fresh new disk storage, a brand new tape library, and hire an independent group of backup administrators to manage. Of course, that is bull, people use much of existing infrastructure and existing skilled labor pool every time new servers are added, as I tried to point out in my post [TSM Economies of Scale].
However, Scott does suggest that we should look at all the costs, not just the cost of a new server, which we in the industry call Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Here is an excerpt:
Final point: there is actually a really important secondary point here--what is the TCO of your backup infrastructure. In some ways, TSM is one of the most expensive (number of servers and tape drives, for example), relative to other backup applications. However, I think it would be a really interesting exercise to critically examine the TCO of the various backup applications at different scales to evaluate if there is any genuine cost differentiation between them.
Fortunately, I have a recent TCO/ROI analysis for a large customer in the Eastern United States that compares their existing EMC Legato deployment to a new proposed TSM deployment. The assessment was performed by our IBM Tivoli ROI Analyst team, using a tool developed by Alinean. The process compares the TCO of the currently deployed solution (in this case EMC Legato) with the TCO of the proposed replacement solution (in this case IBM TSM) for 55,000 client nodes at expected growth rates over a three year period, and determines the amount of investment, cost savings and other benefits, and return on investment (ROI).
Here are the results:
"A risk adjusted analysis of the proposed solution's impact was conducted and it was projected that implementing the proposed solutions resulted in $16,174,919 of 3 year cumulative benefits. Of these projected benefits, $8,015,692 are direct benefits and $8,159,227 are indirect benefits.
Top cumulative benefits for the project include:
Backup Coverage Risk Avoidance - $6,749,796
Reduction in Maintenance of Competitive Products - $1,576,000
Reduction in Existing Tivoli Maintenance (Storage and Monitoring) - $1,490,000
IT Operations Labor Savings - Storage Management - $982,919
Network Bandwidth Savings - $575,196
Standardization - $366,667
Future cost avoidance of addtional competitive licenses - $350,000
These benefits can be grouped regarding business impact as:
$6,456,025 in IT cost reductions
$1,559,667 in business operating efficiency improvements
$8,159,227 in business strategic advantage benefits
The proposed project is expected to help the company meet the following goals and drive the following benefits:
Reduce Business Risks $6,749,796
Consolidate and Standardize IT Infrastructure $4,975,667
Reduce IT Infrastructure Costs $2,057,107
Improve IT System Availability / Service Levels $1,409,431
Improve IT Staff Efficiency / Productivity $982,919
To implement the proposed project will require a 3 year cumulative investment of $5,760,094 including:
$0 in initial expenses
$4,650,000 in capital expenditures
$1,110,094 in operating expenditures
Comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed project using discounted cash flow analysis and factoring in a risk-adjusted discount rate of 9.5%, the proposed business case predicts:
Risk Adjusted Return on Investment (RA ROI) of 172%
Return on Investment (ROI) of 181%
Net Present Value (NPV) savings of $8,425,014
Payback period of 9.0 month(s)
Note: The project has been risk-adjusted for an overall deployment schedule of 5 months."
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager uses less bandwidth, fewer disk and tape storage resources than EMC Legato. For even a large deployment of this kind, payback period is only NINE MONTHS. Generally, if you can get a new proposed investment to have less than 24 month payback period you have enough to get both CFO and CIO excited, so this one is a no-brainer.
Perhaps this helps explain why TSM enjoys such a larger marketshare than EMC Legato in the backup software marketplace. No doubt Scott might be able to come up with a counter-example, a very small business with fewer than 10 employees where an EMC Legato deployment might be less expensive than a comparable TSM deployment. However, when it comes to scalability, TSM is king. The majority of the Fortune 1000 companies use Tivoli Storage Manager, and IBM uses TSM internally for its own IT, managed storage services, and cloud computing facilities.
I saw this as an opportunity to promote the new IBM Tivoli Storage Manager v6.1 which offers a variety of new scalability features, and continues to provide excellent economies of scale for large deployments, in my post [IBM has scalable backup solutions].
"So does TSM scale? Sure! Just add more servers. But this is not an economy of scale. Nothing gets less expensive as the capacity grows. You get a more or less linear growth of costs that is directly correlated to the growth of primary storage capacity. (Technically, it costs will jump at regular and predictable intervals, by regular and predictable and equal amounts, as you add TSM servers to the infrastructure--but on average it is a direct linear growth. Assuming you are right sized right now, if you were to double your primary storage capacity, you would double the size of the TSM infrastructure, and double your associated costs.)"
I talked about inaccurate vendor FUD in my post [The murals in restaurants], and recently, I saw StorageBod's piece, [FUDdy Waters]. So what would "economies of scale" look like? Using Scott's own words:
Without Economies of Scale
"If it costs you $5 to backup a given amount of data, it probably costs you $50 to back up 10 times that amount of data, and $500 to back up 100 times that amount of data."
With Economies of Scalee
"If anybody can figure out how to get costs down to $40 for 10 times the amount of data, and $300 for 100 times the amount of data, they will have an irrefutable advantage over anybody that has not been able to leverage economies of scale."
So, let's do some simple examples. I'll focus on a backup solution just for employee workstations, each employee has 100GB of personal data to backup on their laptop or PC. We'll look at a one-person company, a ten-person company, and a hundred-person company.
Case 1: The one-person company
Here the sole owner needs a backup solution. Here are all the steps she might perform:
Spend hours of time evaluating different backup products available, and make sure her operating system, file system and applications are supported
Spend hours shopping for external media, this could be an external USB disk drive, optical DVD drive, or tape drive, and confirm it is supported by the selected backup software.
Purchase the backup software, external drive, and if optical or tape, blank media cartridges.
Spend time learning the product, purchase "Backup for Dummies" or similar book, and/or taking a training class.
Install and configure the software
Operate the software, or set it up to run automatically, and take the media offsite at the end of the day, and back each morning
Case 2: The ten-person company
I guess if each of the ten employees went off and performed all of the same steps as above, there would be no economies of scale.
Fortunately, co-workers are amazingly efficient in avoiding unnecessary work.
Rather than have all ten people evaluate backup solutions, have one person do it. If everyone runs the same or similar operating system, file systems and applications, this can be done about the same as the one-person case.
Ditto on the storage media. Why should 10 people go off and evaluate their own storage media. One person can do it for all ten people in about the same time as it takes for one person.
Purchasing the software and hardware. Ok, here is where some costs may be linear, depending on your choices. Some software vendors give bulk discounts, so purchasing 10 seats of the same software could be less than 10 times the cost of one license. As for storage hardware, it might be possible to share drives and even media. Perhaps one or two storage systems can be shared by the entire team.
For a lot of backup software, most of the work is in the initial set up, then it runs automatically afterwards. That is the case for TSM. You create a "dsm.opt" file, and it can list all of the include/exclude files and other rules and policies. Once the first person sets this up, they share it with their co-workers.
Hopefully, if storage hardware was consolidated, such that you have fewer drives than people, you can probably have fewer people responsible for operations. For example, let's have the first five employees sharing one drive managed by Joe, and the second five employees sharing a second drive managed by Sally. Only two people need to spend time taking media offsite, bringing it back and so on.
Case 3: The hundred-person company
Again, it is possible that a hundred-person company consists of 10 departments of 10 people each, and they all follow the above approach independently, resulting in no economies of scale. But again, that is not likely.
Here one or a few people can invest time to evaluate backup solutions. Certainly far less than 100 times the effort for a one-person company.
Same with storage media. With 100 employees, you can now invest in a tape library with robotic automation.
Purchase of software and hardware. Again, discounts will probably apply for large deployments. Purchasing 1 tape library for all one hundred people is less than 10 times the cost and effort of 10 departments all making independent purchases.
With a hundred employees, you may have some differences in operating system, file systems and applications. Still, this might mean two to five versions of dsm.opt, and not 10 or 100 independent configurations.
Operations is where the big savings happen. TSM has "progressive incremental backup" so it only backs up changed data. Other backup schemes involve taking period full backups which tie up the network and consume a lot of back end resources. In head-to-head comparisons between IBM Tivoli Storage Manager and Symantec's NetBackup, IBM TSM was shown to use significantly less network LAN bandwidth, less disk storage capacity, and fewer tape cartridges than NetBackup.
The savings are even greater with data deduplication. Either using hardware, like IBM TS76750 ProtecTIER data deduplication solution, or software like the data deduplication capability built-in with IBM TSM v6.1, you can take advantage of the fact that 100 employees might have a lot of common data between them.
So, I have demonstrated how savings through economies of scale are achieved using IBM Tivoli Storage Manager. Adding one more person in each case is cheaper than the first person. The situation is not linear as Scott suggests. But what about larger deployments? IBM TS3500 Tape Library can hold one PB of data in only 10 square feet of data center floorspace. The IBM TS7650G gateway can manage up to 1 PB of disk, holding as much as 25 PB of backup copies. IT Analysts Tony Palmer, Brian Garrett and Lauren Whitehouse from Enterprise Strategy Group tried IBM TSM v6.1 out for themselves and wrote up a ["Lab Validation"] report. Here is an excerpt:
"Backup/recovery software that embeds data reduction technology can address all three of these factors handily. IBM TSM 6.1 now has native deduplication capabilities built into its Extended Edition (EE) as a no-cost option. After data is written to the primary disk pool, a deduplication operation can be scheduled to eliminate redundancy at the sub-file level. Data deduplication, as its name implies, identifies and eliminates redundant data.
TSM 6.1 also includes features that optimize TSM scalability and manageability to meet increasingly demanding service levels resulting from relentless data growth. The move from a proprietary back-end database to IBM DB2 improves scalability, availability, and performance without adding complexity; the DB2 database is automatically maintained and managed by TSM. IBM upgraded the monitoring and reporting capabilities to near real-time and completely redesigned the dashboard that provides visibility into the system. TSM and TSM EE include these enhanced monitoring and reporting capabilities at no cost."
The majority of Fortune 1000 customers use IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, and it is the backup software that IBM uses itself in its own huge data centers, including the cloud computing facilities. In combination with IBM Tivoli FastBack for remote office/branch office (ROBO) situations, and complemented with point-in-time and disk mirroring hardware capabilities such as IBM FlashCopy, Metro Mirror, and Global Mirror, IBM Tivoli Storage Manager can be an effective, scalable part of a complete Unified Recovery Management solution.