On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Jim Hatfield might have said:
> 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.
>
Would a 'poor-mans journaling' help? I wrote a small dos program
that scans all local disks and creates a file of files to give
to dsmc for backing up only the given files.
Mike
|
