Sorry if I left out a few details.

All of our primary pools are defined as FILE device classes either on local
attached SCSI or network storage.  The reason we are installing an LTO drive
is that we have had terrible reliability problems with our existing
Exabyte/IBM Mammoth2.  The Mammoth2 runs great, but we have had bad luck
with media over the last few years (write fine, but can't read).  Backup STG
operations against the Mammoth2 run at 33-42GB/hr, while the same operations
to the LTO drive run in the 10-15GB/hr.  Also, I do see a lot of
ready....writing....ready....writing on the LTO drive, while the Mammoth2 is
constant write.  This does sound consistent with the LTO backhitch problems
I have read about in previous posts.

http://msgs.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0104/750.html



-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Foster [mailto:dsf AT GBLX DOT NET]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:09 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: TSM LTO 3580 Performance


Also, is there a diskpool? ie:

client->server[diskpool]->server[tapes]

If there's no diskpool in between the client and the tape drives, will be a
lot of stop/go writes to tape, resulting in about 1 MB/sec vs 10-25 MB/sec.

At least, that's true for LTO-1 drives. I've heard that LTO-2 drives better
handles this kind of situation.

-Dan