Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Using\s+FILE\s+instead\s+of\s+DISK\s+devclass\s+to\s+avoid\s+disk\s+under\-utilization\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Using\s+FILE\s+instead\s+of\s+DISK\s+devclass\s+to\s+avoid\s+disk\s+under\-utilization\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:49:02 -0400; I just got a situation that requires yet another storage pool hierarchy, and I am starting to run into the problem described in [1]; basically I have more than enough disk in aggregate to handle nigh; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00535.html (13,952 bytes)
2. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:38:14 -0400; Um. I don't really see what the issue is. TSM is elegantly designed to automatically compensate for a disk pool being too small on occasion by kicking in the migration to tape automatically for you,; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00542.html (14,991 bytes)
3. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Thomas Denier <Thomas.Denier AT JEFFERSONHOSPITAL DOT ORG>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:43:28 -0400; -- Daniel Clark wrote: -- We are using this kind of setup with TSM 5.2. We have run into two types of problems. The first problem is that things get really ugly if the storage pools collectively get; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00543.html (13,678 bytes)
4. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:44:52 -0400; TSM is elegantly designed to automatically compensate for a disk pool being too small on occasion by kicking in the migration to tape automatically for you, based on the thresholds you set. So it's w; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00545.html (14,936 bytes)
5. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:54:00 -0400; The first problem is that things get really ugly if the storage pools collectively get larger than the shared disk space. Ugly in what kind of way? Clients don't just block until one of the FILE clas; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00546.html (15,042 bytes)
6. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Roger Deschner <rogerd AT UIC DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:34:31 -0500; You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because RAID5 is quite slow for writing. RAID5 is really only good for read; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00548.html (14,425 bytes)
7. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:51:48 -0400; On 10/26/06, Roger Deschner <rogerd AT uic DOT edu> wrote: You probably want to avoid RAID5 for disk storage pools, whether sequential or random. That can really slow client backups, because RAID5 is; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00560.html (14,106 bytes)
8. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: "Bos, Karel" <Karel.Bos AT ATOSORIGIN DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:35:32 +0200; Hi, Reading the threat and missing something. Why another stg? For normal backup data I like to use JBOD config. No read protection at all and maximum usable GB per disk. In order to minimize the num; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00561.html (15,019 bytes)
9. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Mark Stapleton <mark.s AT EVOLVINGSOL DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:22:57 -0500; There's a certain amount of sense there. What is the purpose of fault tolerance in a TSM disk storage pool? At the end of a process cycle, all customer data exists in at least three or four places: 1; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00562.html (14,203 bytes)
10. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: goc <goran.k AT VIP DOT HR>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:30:29 +0200; we are using RAID5 in last 6 years as diskpools with no problems whatsoever we used SSA, now we are using SATA on DS4100 goran From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Be; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00563.html (14,678 bytes)
11. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Thomas Denier <Thomas.Denier AT JEFFERSONHOSPITAL DOT ORG>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:15:26 -0400; --Daniel Clark wrote: -- No, the clients keep trying to send data, and transaction failures occur until some disk space is made available. In addition, when a write to a file volume fails for lack of; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00564.html (14,595 bytes)
12. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47:18 -0400; You may have missed it, as the reason that prompted my question was buried in one of the later replies - basically I need to have a "special" storage pool for a limited set of machines that has a pri; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00567.html (14,026 bytes)
13. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:37:42 -0400; There's a certain amount of sense there. What is the purpose of fault tolerance in a TSM disk storage pool? At the end of a process cycle, all customer data exists in at least three or four places: I; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00568.html (14,935 bytes)
14. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Daniel Clark <dclark AT POBOX DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:27:25 -0400; No, the clients keep trying to send data, and transaction failures occur until some disk space is made available. In addition, when a write to a file volume fails for lack of disk space, TSM will all; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00569.html (13,701 bytes)
15. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:29:50 -0400; And now for the counterpoint. I've got ~3-4 TB in 6 15-disk SSA RADI5s, between them I fill a Gb pipe coming in, if the clients on the other side ever get organized. 30MB/s peak per RAID is seldom t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00570.html (13,824 bytes)
16. Re: Using FILE instead of DISK devclass to avoid disk under-utilization (score: 1): Author: Stef Coene <stef.coene AT DOCUM DOT ORG>; Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:43:33 +0200; I do not agree. New SAN boxes with write cache (with battery's) are smart. Very smart. New boxes are even better and need less ram to have the same performance. I did some tests on raw devices and I; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-10/msg00571.html (15,091 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]