ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Crazy idea or not?

2009-01-30 11:45:48
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Crazy idea or not?
From: "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT UFL DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:44:42 -0500
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:17 +0100, Christian Svensson <Christian.Svensson 
>> AT CRISTIE DOT SE> said:

> Have anyone try to setup multiple TSM Servers with Library manager
> in a VMware/XEN envirenment where are using multiple host where each
> host have, let's say 8 x 4 core CPUs with 256 GB memory in each
> host.  We where thinking of to try it during Q1/Q2 this year and try
> to transfer 400 test nodes with 25-50 TB data just for fun.  The
> backup will be both LAN-Free and LAN backups. But each TSM Server
> will have direct access to the tape drives via Fiber Channel.


Coming from Cristie, I'd guess you're setting up some sort of test
environment against which to run your BMR products, right?  So you're
really working in a different problem space than most of us; the
tradeoffs we'd find compelling might be irrelevant to you.

I'd say running such an IO intensive app in a hardware environment
where you know you'll pay some overhead seems the wrong way to go.  I
wouldn't reccomend virtualizing your TSM server unless, in your own
setting, it constitutes a relatively minor IO load.


Let's say your total load is large enough that you have multiple
64-core 256G machines to sustain it. In this case you're large enough
to deploy multiple dedicated TSM servers.  You can then do your
"virtualization" within those system images.  More efficient all
around, especially with memory.

But then, I'm running a 1000-node 600TB (primary) environment on a
4-core 8G P630.  You're so ludicrously overpowered for the load you
describe that the virtualization overhead will be meaningless.  Hell,
you could even fit Windows in there; go nuts.


- Allen S. Rout

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>