If I were setting this up I would probably buy several V880's instead of an
F6800. I would then divide my load up in among them in such a way that I
could reasonably achieve my backup requirements on 2 GigE NIC's and 2 FC-2
HBA's. On top of that I would make sure that, initially, my database size
per server would be no more than 35 GB, leaving me some reasonable room for
growth. You won't need more than 4 CPU's per box that way. You can have up
to 875 GB of raw FC-AL disk internal to V880, and multipath it, at that.
This would give you a lot of room for your database and disk pools on the
internal disk, freeing up your more costly HDS storage for other tasks.
The F6800 costs you a premium and you will, if you have a single domain on
the box, which seems unlikely for this backup scenario, only get 28 total
PCI slots. When you take some away for boot disk connectivity, basic SAN
connectivity and basic network connectivity you will be left with only about
10 66 MHz PCI slots. With the V880 you are looking at having 9 PCI slots
immediately available that have nothing in them since your boot disk and
basic network connectivity are available on the system board. The V880 comes
with the same Sun Fireplane interconnect as the SunFire class servers,
including the F6800.
Eric W. Cowperthwaite
EDS Operations Solutions
California Medicaid (Medi-Cal)
(916)859-6809
eric.cowperthwaite AT eds DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Walters [mailto:scott_walters AT MACKTRUCKS DOT COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 6:01 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: SUN F6800's
6TB day. yikes. my calculations give me a sustained transfer of
72.82Megabytes per second for 24 hours, to do that. That's assuming you
have 24 hours to do the 6TB.
Like you were saying, the bottleneck for this large an environment is
probably going to be network capacity into the server, or output
capacity to your tape drives. I couldn't even guestimate the impact of
TSM processing CPU/RAM wise on a setup this large. Many small files
will definitely hurt, but if 4 of the TB are just Oracle dumps, TSM screams.
I think it imperative that you make sure LAN free backups are integrated
into this setup. SAN DISK to SAN TAPE. I've not used it but everything
else about TSM has been spot on.
We backup to disk and then sweep to tape (on and offsite), but for a
setup this large, I don't know how practical that is. But off course,
you could configure some backups go to disk, some straight to tape, etc.
If you are worried about the scalability, go with the 6800. With the
880 it *could* be an issue, not with the 6800.
more power!
scott
Reiss David IT751 (ext-CDI) wrote:
> Yeah. More info:
>
> I'm looking to do about 6 TB of data backed up per day, into a library
with
> a capicity of around 400 TB (20 LTO2 drives in a Storage Tek 5500 most
> likely). About 2500 systems to backup total.
>
> This will run intergrated into a SAN environment (HP XP1024) with roughly
10
> TB of disk reservered for TSM Disk Storage Pools, and the SF6800 will also
> have a Fibre JBOD attachement (probably storedge 3510 -- 12 x146GB disk)
for
> the TSM database and logvolumes. I'm going to be backing up to the disk
> pools first, and then migrating to tape later.
>
> The reason we have been looking at the SF6800 is the simple fact that we
can
> load it up with fibre cards for attachment into the SAN switches so that
we
> can use the SAN for as much of our backups as possible. Our current
XP1024
> (really Hatachi 9980 disk under the hood) is about 50 TB of total disk
> storage, with I'm told, plans for it to be about 140 TB in the next year
to
> 18 months. There are multipule SAN switches built in here, so we should
be
> able to do more than the 2G SAN speed due to the mulipule feeds from
various
> switches.
>
> Basically, SUN tells me that we should be able to jam the 6800 with IO out
> the ying-yang. I am wondering if they are correct for a TSM setup.
>
> We'll be intergating this with our current soluation of two old H70's and
a
> 3494 with 28 3590E1A drives with a capicity of about 100 TB. The problems
> with it being that we are always processor and RAM limitiation of the
> servers. All Fibre attached with about 5 TB of disk in the SAN now.
>
> I want the choke point of the backup systems to be the tape Drives and SAN
> disk, so that when we do reach limits... we won't have to worry about
> needing new servers or more RAM... I want to be able to know that we can
> just drop some more tape drives or more disk into place, and run with it.
> Scalibility is very important here.
>
> I don't mind overkilling something to a point, but the 6800 does almost
seem
> to be overkill to me. Half my issue with it is sitting back and thinking
> "So, they want to sell me a 6800. Just go with it." Followed by weird
> ToolMan grunting. :-)
>
> The IO requirements are what appears to be driving me toward it. The
> processors and RAM... while nice... those aren't driving factors.
>
> Thank you,
>
> David N. Reiss
> TSM Support Engineer
> david.reiss AT siemens DOT com
> 407-736-3912
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cowperthwaite, Eric [mailto:eric.cowperthwaite AT EDS DOT COM]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 4:13 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: SUN F6800's
>
>
> David,
>
> The majority of our TSM servers run on Sun workgroup platforms, ranging
from
> E420R's to V480 and V880 machines. We have one on an E3500, but the V880
has
> more I/O capacity than an E3500. Bottom line, you probably are wasting
money
> on an SF6800, although maybe we could give a bit more insight if we knew
> what your I/O requirements were.
>
> Eric W. Cowperthwaite
> EDS Operations Solutions
> California Medicaid (Medi-Cal)
> eric.cowperthwaite AT eds DOT com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reiss David IT751 (ext-CDI) [mailto:david.reiss AT SIEMENS DOT COM]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 7:41 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: SUN F6800's
>
> Is anyone out there running a TSM Server on a dedicated Sun F6800 machine?
> We are sizing our servers for replacement and in sizing IO Requirements
with
> Sun, TSM, and Storage Tek, we're being directed at the F6800 (which almost
> seems like overkill to me) by our vendors.
>
> I was thinking that the V880 or V1280 would be where they would end up
> putting us, but the costs of a couple of V1280's or one F6800 with two
> domains seem to be about the same. So, is anybody out there using a very
> large machine like the F6800 dedicated to its existance as a TSM server,
and
> are you experiencing any problems with them?
>
> Normally, I have worked with large RS/6000 AIX machines but my current
> company doesn't like AIX, so I'm running with the Solaris bulls now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David N. Reiss
> TSM Support Engineer
> david.reiss AT siemens DOT com
> 407-736-3912
>
>
--
Scott Walters
Packet Pusher - "The world speaks IP"
Mack Trucks, WHQ http://www.MackTrucks.com
2100 Mack Boulevard Ph: 610.709.3728
Allentown, PA 18103 Fx: 610.709.2809
|
