ADSM-L

Re: Performance

2015-10-04 17:41:28
Subject: Re: Performance
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Backup and restore performance for NT clients has been an issue at our site
for nearly two years.  Our pursuit of this has yeilded very little result.
We have tuned (with and without IBM assistance) till we are IBM BLUE.  We
have talked with NT experts, ADSM experts, and network experts. To date no,
one has explained why our UNIX clients get 19GB per hour consistantly and
our NT clients only get 8GB per hour.  In fact, no one seems to be able to
tell us exactly how the NT client code works.  Meanwhile, as the storage
capacity of these clients grow, ADSM's ability to restore within the
required window weakens. People are looking at other solutions.

I believe Nathans comments ARE directed in a constructive way. IBM must fix
performance of NT clients to maintain ADSM as a viable tool.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sims [SMTP:rbs AT BU DOT EDU]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:33 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: Performance
>
> ...
> >However when it comes to restoring servers which are 90% small files then
> we
> >may aswell be on a 4Mb Token Ring. We once
> >had the grand oppurtunity to restore the drive of an SMS Server which was
> >made up of about 16Gb worth of 2Kb log files.
> >This took 27hrs.
> ...
> > when it comes to small files Adsm just plain sucks!
> ...
> >Any thoughts?
>
> Nathan - You clearly had a very frustrating, unsatisfactory restoral
>          experience.  But realize that it's not helping the many customers
> on
> the mailing list to just receive a splat without any details as to how the
> restoral was performed...like network configuration, network load at the
> time,
> server system load, what else the ADSM server was doing, server
> configuration,
> server options, database cache hit ratio, client load, disk configuration,
> file system topology, ADSM client options, restoral command, results from
> testing various combinations in your configuration, etc.
>
> The great value in our mailing list is in discovering optimal techniques,
> and
> then sharing them, to the betterment of all.  Realize that it's plain
> frustrating for the people on the list to see complaints rather than the
> results from measured analysis.  And it does not point to solid evidence
> that
> IBM can react to in bettering the product - which will help everyone.
>
> Sure - there's a lot of frustration out in the customer base.  But I as a
> customer feel that I have a responsibility both as a customer and a
> professional in the data processing field to do some research, to prod the
> system, change variables, and find out where the problems are.  We can
> shower
> IBM with raw complaints and they can tell us about KLOC numbers, but
> working
> together with specifics will really solve problems.  Yes, sometimes it's
> necessary to shake up vendors to get them to be responsive to the
> realities we
> face, but the rest of the time customers and vendor need to dig in and get
> to
> the bottom of what's really wrong.  Hey, we're not here as a personal
> pursuit:
> we're in company and institutional positions as employees expected to
> effectively deal with problems for the better operation of the
> organization so
> that we can all make more money!
>
> Naturally, not all customer sites have the resources to pursue things to
> the
> depth that better-equipped sites can, and hence depend upon the results
> that
> others find.  The mailing list is a dissemination and discussion point for
> what ails us and what we can do for each other as well as solicit the
> vendor,
> IBM, to improve conditions beyond the pointed problems we need to bring to
> the
> Support Center.  IBM, in turn, needs to be responsive to the discontent
> evidenced in the customer base, which is the List's great value to them;
> and
> they need to feed back on optimal techniques, which they often do very
> well in
> the famous Redbooks [please encourage them].  From management feedback to
> the
> List, it is very evident that IBM is listening; but what they particularly
> want to hear is substantive feedback to allow them to respond as
> substantively.  This is what we need to do.
>
> So channel that energy in ways that will help the general case.
>
>     Richard Sims, BU
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>