Re: Supported configurations (was: Second ASP at a remote location) -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Supported configurations (was: Second ASP at a remote location)
From: James Lampert <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:18:52 -0800
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Lukas Beeler wrote:

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Pete Massiello
<pmassiello-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just because your core application vendor doesn't support tape
encryption, doesn't mean you can't use it. We have installed LTO-4

Yes, because running unsupported configurations has always been an
excellent idea on business critical systems. Just doing something
because you think you can get away with it doesn't mean you should do
it.

What I don't get is why an application (or its vendor) should give a rodent's defecatory orifice about tape encryption.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.