Hi Shawn,
I love, and am a little frustrated with, Journaling.
5.3.3 Tivoli server on Windows 2003
5.3.3 client on another Windows 2003
We are in the process of moving 48 million files from an old server to the
new one...the old server is far too big to be able to do an incremental..I
do weekly images instead.
Originally, I had a twice-a-day incremental on the server being migrated to,
and the journaling service crashed three times (I'm still trying to get
through to IBM support to investigate why).
Even at two hour incrementals, my *.jbbdb local database file is 850MB due,
I guess, to the high number of files being migrated.
In the meantime, now with the two-hour incremental schedule, and for the
last 24 hours, journaling has been amazing!
Instead of a new-server incremental taking 14 hours, it takes between six
and seven minutes with journaling...According to windows perf mon, I am
getting 110 disk-reads a second on the SAN (we're on SATA drives on the
back-end) which isn't too bad considering it's writing a few new files
during each second of monitoring as well. But when you have 4 million files
for an incremental to check:
4,000,000/110 reads/sec=10.1 hours + Windows/migration overhead = 14 hours
48,000,000/110 reads/sec=5.05 days + Windows/migration overhead = ??? (which
is why I can't do incrementals on the old server)
The other problem with traditional incrementals on millions of files is it
beats the heck out of the hardware...the drives are constantly seeking as
fast as they can for hours or days.
So, I am very thankful for journaling as long as the service doesn't
crash...but again, IBM hasn't looked at this yet until my account-rep can
clear up that yes, we bought tivoli and yes, we have a support contract. :)
-Jim Hatfield
I/S Manager
Kings Daughters Medical Center
606-327-6144
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Malone
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Sent: 6/13/06 7:27 AM
Subject: [ADSM-L] Journal Based Backups
I wanted to start a discussion on the advantages and
disadvantages of Journal Based Backups for Windows
Servers.
We currently run TSM 5.3 on an AIX platform and have
a subset group who administer the TSM Clients on the
windows servers. They have been hesitant to turn
Journal Based Backups on because of past issues.
From what I have seen prior to TSM 5.3 there were a
number of issues with JBB, however, since 5.3 there
have been changes which have fixed prior issues, such
as sessions hanging, disconnects etc...
I just attended a class for TSM in which the
instructor said the only overhead on the client was
about 10MB, the size of the file which houses the
directory entries.
So my question to this list is, those of you who
utilize JBB is what have you seen as being an
advantages and disadvantages of this feature?
I would like to put together a document which I can
present to the Windows Administrators to move them
towards Journal Based Backups on clients which have
more than 400,000 files.
Thank you,
Shawn Malone
---------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
|
