ADSM-L

FW: Database volume size

1996-01-03 14:44:05
Subject: FW: Database volume size
From: Andrew Mark Raibeck <raibeck AT CONNIX DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:44:05 -0500
Jeff Mathers asks:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Forwarded letter follows =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I've been following the ongoing discussion on database volumes and
sizes that echoes a concern I have about the ever increasing size my
database requires.

I have archived about 40,000 files (1 GB) to my server. I am
permanently archiving scientific data collected off instrumentation.
Files initially stored on disk volumes is migrated to tape, and
hopefully in the future to a CD-R device.

I have increased the size of my batabase to 100 MB, but I am
concerned that this file will continue to chew a larger bite of my
server hard drive as I archive more files.

Is there any way to break up the database so that parts of it are
placed on tape and not on the hard drive or something similar? There
must be some way to reduce the disk requirements necessary to
maintain a large file archive.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Forwarded letter ends =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The only ways I know of to decrease the database size requirement are =
to:

1) Reduce the amount of data you back up and/or archive to the server, =
either by reducing the number of versions you maintain, or being more =
choosy about what you back up and archive.

2) Don't use the disk storage pool caching feature (normally I don't =
recommend caching).

3) Don't use the storage pool backup features of ADSM V2 (I *highly* =
recommend using these features, though).

I would suggest taking a philosophical approach to this. Considering all =
the function built into ADSM, and the services it provides, I don't =
think the database size is particularly prohibitive. In my previous shop =
(Connecticut Mutual) our database was up to 2 GB, but we were providing =
backup and archive services for well over 100 GB of data. So in the big =
scheme of things, I don't think of this as being all that much. But =
that's just my opinion, offering a different slant on the issue, so take =
it for what it's worth.   :)

Andy Raibeck
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>