Thanks Richard, et al,

I thought the default RESOURCEUTIL was also the minimal value, so I
don't think we could lower that any more than it already is.  Using
MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP is a good idea, as is using 'nice' to deprioritize.

We have actually been working hard to improve TSM performance so that
we can restore data more quickly.  Seems that every action has some
re-action.  Reducing the TSM Server as a bottleneck serves to move
the bottleneck to the client, where it can interfere with other applications.

..Paul

At 02:37 PM 4/25/2006, Richard Sims wrote:

Certainly, "de-tuning" the TSM backups will reduce the impact, where
the most obvious tactic is to minimize RESOURceutilization. And you
can get more drastic via MEMORYEFficientbackup Yes. Depending upon
the file population, the influx of the Active files list at the
beginning of an incremental will always have a "fixed" impact. Beyond
that, you can deprioritize the TSM client process at the OS level.

--
Paul Zarnowski                            Ph: 607-255-4757
Manager, Storage Systems                  Fx: 607-255-8521
719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801    Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu