Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Newcomer
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default "Move data" from DISK to FILE pool - increased diskspace consumption by 25%?!

    Hello!

    Our primary filelevel backup storagepool (called “filesrv”) is of DISK devclass and spans its volumes over several disk shelves, 18 TB altogether, 40 GB per volume. Now I’ve added a new, large shelf and wanted to use the opportunity to retire that pool and replace it with a sequential devclass FILE pool.

    To make use of aggregate reconstruction I did this:

    • Create two new FILE pools (“filesrv_seq” and “filesrv_seq_tmp”)
    • Used “move data” on two of the DISK volumes to “filesrv_seq_tmp”
    • Used “move data” of the new sequential volumes with reconstruct=yes to "filesrv_seq"

    The two DISK volumes were both full at 40GB each. The sequential pool however checks in at ~100GB now. That’s a 25% increase in diskspace consumption for the same data – and I have just no clue where that comes from. Can one of you guys tell me what happened or what I did wrong? Or is this to be expected and will level out over time?

    I'm a bit clueless right now and am considering to continue using "DISK" ... by the way, it's TSM 5.4 on a Windows 2003 machine.

    Thank you very much!


    Regards,
    Chris

  2. #2
    Moderator moon-buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the US
    Posts
    5,718
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 207 Times in 202 Posts

    Default

    I believe the simple answer to the increase in space requirement is compression. If I remember right, sequential file type storage on disk does not compress the same way as data stored on random disk.

    I maybe wrong - anyone has some insights?
    Last edited by moon-buddy; 04-05-2012 at 08:52 AM.
    Ed

  3. #3
    Moderator chad_small's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    2,191
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    How many volumes made up the DISK pool and what is the file size for the file devclass?
    Chad Small
    IBM Certified Deployment Professional
    chadsmal@gmail.com
    http://www.tsmadmin.com

  4. #4
    Newcomer
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    chad_small : the DISK pool currently spans 475 volumes at 40G each, the FILE devclasses are set to 50G volumes. Right now I have not moved more than two of the DISK pool volumes to the FILE pool because I'd like to clear things up first.

    moon-buddy : I guess that'd make sense but a 25% percent difference is pretty crazy imho. Even if we'd upgrade to TSM 6.x and use deduplication I'm sure we'd end up not under the DISK pool's diskspace consumption ...

  5. #5
    Newcomer
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    By the way - my current "working theory" is this:

    A logical "file" may be spread over several "DISK" volumes. This might be intentional for performance reasons (can anybody confirm?!) and will definately happen if a file will not fit a DISK volume. Now, on FILE volumes all files need to be "joined" since it's sequential access. So when issueing "move data" on a DISK volume what happens is that not only the bits and pieces of the volumes but in fact all logical files are moved, piecing together the data from possibly many DISK volumes. Which might very well result in the seemingly increased disk consumption.

    If that is correct the effect would "level out" once more volumes are moved from the DISK to the FILE pool.

    Any thoughts on this?

  6. #6
    Moderator moon-buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the US
    Posts
    5,718
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 207 Times in 202 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmoeller View Post
    By the way - my current "working theory" is this:

    A logical "file" may be spread over several "DISK" volumes. This might be intentional for performance reasons (can anybody confirm?!) and will definately happen if a file will not fit a DISK volume. Now, on FILE volumes all files need to be "joined" since it's sequential access. So when issueing "move data" on a DISK volume what happens is that not only the bits and pieces of the volumes but in fact all logical files are moved, piecing together the data from possibly many DISK volumes. Which might very well result in the seemingly increased disk consumption.

    If that is correct the effect would "level out" once more volumes are moved from the DISK to the FILE pool.

    Any thoughts on this?
    The thought of the data being spread among volumes in the disk pool is correct when running backups. This is done to speed things up. However, compression is also in effect.

    I still believe that the increase in sequential file space is simply because of reduced compression or total lack of it.
    Ed

Similar Threads

  1. "move data" command failing
    By cheffern in forum TSM Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 06:12 AM
  2. backup to FILE pool using "busy" volumes
    By oskie in forum TSM Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 12:52 PM
  3. How to move a "disk based" database backup ?
    By Juddster in forum TSM Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 04:50 AM
  4. Difference between "move data" & "move nodedata"?
    By cheffern in forum Backup / Archive Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 09:30 AM
  5. "Move" data from one management class to another
    By jmoen in forum Backup / Archive Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 09:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •