I'g go with Keith's solution to share a library between the database
and backup clients. I would definitely drop any DLT drives, DLT works
only in low demand storage environments.
On the whole you'll be way better of with just the one 3494 library and
the 4 3590 drives. (go for more).
You have some options in the way you configure the library.
1. Two *SM servers that each own 2 3590 drives, one server being the
SAP/Oracle server the other *SM server. This would give you optimal
performance in both environments, the most critical the DB data not
going thru any network piping. The only downside is that you have to
manage 2 *SM servers and won't achieve optimal utilisation on those
very expensive 3590 drives.
2. One *SM server for both environments. This will only work if you have
a very fat network connection. 400gb of DB's would mean something
more than 100 mb ether. This config should give you the edge on *SM
managability and higher utilisation of the 3590's (night time
allocation for DB backup's, day time allocation for client data,
-client data going first to disk storage- migration and *SM
householding/DRM. The whole does envolve more balancing and tweaking
of *SM processes.
A 3rd option would be trying out TSM 3.7 library sharing, this does
envolve setting up a SAN around the TSM servers and storage hardware.
Library sharing is farely new and I haven't heard any success stories
yet. Libary sharing would solve option 2's possible network thruput
shortage giving you 100 megebytes/sec to pump DB data. It also solves
option 1's 3590 underutilisation, i.e. sharing all drives with all TSM
library manager attached TSM clients . Libary sharing is almost there
for an AIX and 3590 combi, for more info you'll have to contact your
friendly Tivoli representative.
As some put so elegantly, my two cents worth.
regards Walter Ridderhof.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Cost justification
Author: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> at INET-1
Date: 12/22/99 1:02 PM
If you ever get off the DLT's (they are notorious for media faults, there's
just too many friction points that cause debris to fly)... the 3494/3590
solution can be quite amazing, especially for large data base backups --- I
have a client using 4-drive silos for SAP backups (on two different HA
servers), he runs 3 threads of BackInt and gets (effectively) 80 GB/hr over
FDDI network (BackInt applies a light-compression scheme to the data, which
accounts for some of that speed)... every day, he books the 3 tape drives
"like a cheap motel", going straight to tape for each client's appropriate
backup window, even has alerts calling his pager if it misses its
performance numbers by more than 10% on any given day.
Don France
Technical Architect, P.A.C.E.
San Jose, CA
mailto:dfrance AT pacbell DOT net
PACE - http://www.pacepros.com
Bus-Ph: (408) 257-3037
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Nelson [SMTP:knelson AT OPENMIC DOT COM]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 1:29 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Cost justification
>
> I am curious as to the problems you've been
> experiencing with the
> STK
> library. If those could be addressed, would you
> consider an upgrade
> to
> another STK library that would allow you to reuse the
> DLT drives,
> add 9840
> drives and add capacity? You could also dynamically
> share the single
> library
> and all the tape transports between the two ADSM
> servers rather than
> managing two libraries in a direct-attach fashion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> Keith Nelson Voice: 612.891.2867
> Gresham Enterprise Storage Fax: 612.891.4763
> knelson AT openmic DOT com Web:
> http://www.gresham-computing.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
> [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On
> Behalf Of
> > Walter, Jeannine
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 11:33 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Cost justification
> >
> >
> > OK, expert storage specialists,
> > I'm in a bit of a bind here. I have proposed a new storage
> > solution for the
> > IT department and I'm getting some flack on
> pricing. Here's what
> I
> > proposed:
> > A new 3494 library with 4 3590 E tape drives
> > A new IBM F50 ADSM server with TSM 3.7
> > Cost is in the neighborhood of $350,000.
> > Here's what we currently have:
> > 1 ADSM server (an IBM S7A) that also runs Oracle and SAP
> > StorageTek 9714 with 6 DLT 7000 drives
> >
> > The problem we currently have:
> > 8 Unix servers
> > 14 NT servers
> > and a 400 GB Oracle/SAP database that gets backed
> up every night
> > through SQL
> > Backtrack to ADSM.
> > Copy storage pools are created for file systems and
> SAP production
> data
> > every day.
> > 3 more Unix servers and at least 7 more NT servers
> will be added
> > before Jan
> > 15, 2000.
> > As it stands right now, the 9714 is totally booked.
> The box works
> all day
> > and all night. I've done everything I can to improve
> > performance. The best
> > transfer rate I get is during the copy storage
> pools and at best
> it's 11GB
> > an hour. Eventually some of the 400 GB will be
> archived with
> > HSM. Finding
> > time in the schedule to do this now is impossible.
> >
> > My proposal was to leave ADSM on the Oracle/SAP machine and
> > connect the 3494
> > to it. This machine would then only backup SAP and create
> > off-site storage
> > pools for it.
> > The new F50 would run only ADSM and it would be
> attached to the
> current
> > 9714. It would back up all of our file servers
> that the current
> > SAP machine
> > is doing and all new boxes that come on line.
> >
> > So is this a good idea? Any other thoughts? What
> would be better
> or more
> > cost effective?
> > Management is having trouble dealing with a none
> glamorous piece
> > of hardware
> > (that will only save their butts down the line).
> They don't see
> that now
> > though. They only see this box that costs a
> fortune and doesn't
> carry any
> > users.
> >
> > I, personally, want to stay just with an IBM
> solution because I am
> sick of
> > the finger pointing that goes on now with our
> StorageTek unit.
> StorageTek
> > is constantly blaming IBM for the problems with the
> library and
> IBM is
> > constantly telling me that the problem is with our
> StorageTek
> library.
> >
> > What other solutions are available? I looked at
> StorageTek and
> > IBM but not
> > any other competitors.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jeannine Walter
> >
> > Purina Mills, Inc.
> > St. Louis, MO
> > 314-768-4181
> > Jeannine_Walter AT Purina-Mills DOT com
> <mailto:Jeannine_Walter AT Purina-Mills DOT com>
> >
>
|
