ADSM-L

Re: AW: [ADSM-L] Migration Speed Has Plummeted

2005-08-18 23:45:36
Subject: Re: AW: [ADSM-L] Migration Speed Has Plummeted
From: "Stapleton, Mark" <mark.stapleton AT BERBEE DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:45:18 -0500
FYI, per the TSM manual, raw filesystems should *not* be used in a
file-based disk pool. At this time, file-based disk pools are the way to
go with SATA disks (performance-wise).

--
Mark Stapleton (stapleton AT berbee DOT com)
IBM Certified Advanced Deployment Professional
  Tivoli Storage Management Solutions 2005
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert (CATE) AIX
Office 262.521.5627

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On 
>Behalf Of Leigh Reed
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:16 PM
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: Re: AW: [ADSM-L] Migration Speed Has Plummeted
>
>Joni,
>
>If you read Ben Bullock's recent posting, I agree with 
>everything he has
>said. I would definitely use raw disk volumes (in a Unix world).
>
>
>Leigh
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On 
>Behalf Of
>Joni Moyer
>Sent: 17 August 2005 20:31
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] AW: [ADSM-L] Migration Speed Has Plummeted
>
>Hi Leigh,
>
>I have just added EMC fibre channel disk from a CX700 in the following
>pieces of physical disk under the filesystem /tsmdev/stgpool1
>
>CHRS044     /tsmdev/stgpool1
>
>lun 175           100 GB
>lun 178           100 GB
>lun 181           100 GB
>lun 184           100 GB
>lun 187           100 GB
>lun 190           100 GB
>lun 193           100 GB
>lun 199           100 GB
>lun 204           100 GB
>lun 210           100 GB
>
>Total       1000 GB
>
>When you stated using many small TSM disk storage pool volumes, would
>anyone happen to know what a good, acceptable size TSM volume would be?
>Thanks!
>
>********************************
>Joni Moyer
>Highmark
>Storage Systems
>Work:(717)302-6603
>Fax:(717)302-5974
>joni.moyer AT highmark DOT com
>********************************
>
>
>
>             "Leigh Reed"
>             <L.Reed AT MDX.AC DOT UK
>             >
>To
>             Sent by: "ADSM:           ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>             Dist Stor
>cc
>             Manager"
>             <[email protected]
>Subject
>             .EDU>                     Re: AW: [ADSM-L] Migration Speed
>                                       Has Plummeted
>
>             08/17/2005 10:39
>             AM
>
>
>             Please respond to
>             "ADSM: Dist Stor
>                 Manager"
>             <[email protected]
>                   .EDU>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Joni
>
>The following URL is to the TSM V5.3 Technical Guide Redbook.
>
>If you go to section 3.4.6, it discusses some changes in TSM 5.3 that
>lend themselves to 'disk only backups'
>Obviously, if you're not at 5.3 yet, then they may not be of 
>use to you.
>
>I personally would consider SATA disk as a possible replacement to
>sequential tape, but I would still use good quality fast disk as
>traditional 'random' disk pool to stage the nightly backups. I think
>that it is widely recognised that significantly 'slicing up' the
>diskpool into a large number of smallish volumes, greatly improves
>performance (certainly on the backup). I believe that this is 
>because of
>the 'multi-threaded' nature of TSM.
>
>I would imagine that the config for the best performance of 
>SATA disk as
>random TSM backuppool, would be to configure each SATA disk as a single
>TSM volume within the backuppool and ensure that you have enough SATA
>disks/backuppool volumes as you have sessions in at the same time.
>
>However, with SATA disk capacity increasing rapidly, it's not efficient
>to have a 100 x 250GB SATA disks (100 TSM volumes) sitting in your
>backuppool, that only ever get 10% utilised.
>
>I must state that this is just my opinion, I have no direct experience
>with SATA disks.
>
>Leigh
>