Hi Roger,
The default TSM behavior for most restores is "no query" restore, which
does not require the client to keep all the backup version metadata in
memory. If you are doing a classic restore, either by disabling no query
restore or by doing a partially wildcarded restore, then yes, I can see how
18 million objects on a 32-bit client would present a problem.
- Andy
____________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Raibeck | Tivoli Storage Manager Level 3 Technical Lead |
storman AT us.ibm DOT com
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
Product support:
http://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/Overview/Software/Tivoli/Tivoli_Storage_Manager
Online documentation:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli
+Documentation+Central/page/Tivoli+Storage+Manager
Product Wiki:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli
+Storage+Manager/page/Home
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu> wrote on 2013-10-15
01:54:43:
> From: Roger Deschner <rogerd AT UIC DOT EDU>
> To: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu,
> Date: 2013-10-15 01:55
> Subject: Re: how is memoryefficient diskcachemethod supposed to work
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
>
> What should be scary here is not that your backups are failing, but the
> fact that you might not be able to restore, regardless of whether or not
> your backups are working. And the ability to restore is the whole point
> of backup.
>
> We had one of those old, memory-starved, 32-bit clients (Solaris) who
> had somehow gotten 18,000,000 files in one filespace backed up, with
> most of them in one flat directory. (It was BlackBoard.) We were going
> to move a disk subsystem by restoring the bulk from TSM and then
> catching up incrementally. There was no way a 32-bit TSM client could
> touch that 18,000,000 file filespace for restoring. There's not enough
> room in a 32-bit virtual address space to hold the entire list. There is
> no such thing as "memory efficient restore". I wish there was, because
> in the 32-bit clients it is possible to back something up which cannot
> be restored, if it has many millions of files.
>
> We were going to restore in parts, to another machine that had a 64-bit
> client, and move the restored files over by NFS. But then we decided on
> a completely different strategy for moving this data, so I never had to
> do it.
>
> This backup failure might not be your worst problem here. Run a test to
> make sure a restore (either partial or full) is possible, even after you
> find a way around the backup issues.
>
> Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rogerd AT uic DOT
> edu
> ======I have not lost my mind -- it is backed up on tape somewhere.=====
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Richard Rhodes wrote:
>
> >>
> >> We were able to get to a 64bit OS during an upgrade that made all of
> >> the memory problems go away.
> >
> >This has been our experience also. Not completely, but mostly, and
> >especially if it has lots of memory. It's difficult to convince many
> >people that the biggest and hardest hitting application on their server
> >might be the backup software, and to figure that into their
requirements.
> >
> >Rick
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------
> >The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> >personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
> >the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
> >agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
> >are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
> >and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> >this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> >communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
> >the original message.
> >
>
|
