> Op 29 jan. 2015, om 22:39 heeft Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT U.WASHINGTON DOT 
> EDU> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> TSM between v6.1 and the end of v6.2 was really rough, mostly related to
> DB2. By v6.3 it got a lot more stable. I'm glad we upgraded from v5 early,
> though, since we really benefit from DB2's improved indexing and table
> compression - between two TSM instances we have close to 2 billion file
> versions tracked by TSM. That would have overwhelmed any v5 server, but we
> get by with relatively modestly-sized hardware.

v5 was stable as a rock, but was going nowhere. All of the new features since 
6.1 are possible thanks to DB2. And I vividly recall the days of TSM v4 where 
the day would start with yet another patch of the server and hoping that that 
version would run for more than 24 hours. And yes… I’m still waiting for 
somebody to explain why you need 64 GB of RAM for a medium sized server without 
deduce or replication.

> 
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:29:53PM +0000, David Ehresman wrote:
>> I've been admin TSM since the V3 days if memory serves, and sometimes it 
>> doesn't so much anymore.  I've had a lot less problems with TSM since the 
>> move to DB2. We are now at 7.1.1.  I do not know DB2 and have not had a need 
>> to learn it.  We back up about 400 servers, 350 VMs, 100 databases, and an 
>> Exchange systems which is just big.  FWIW, we do not do software (TSM) dedup.
> 
> --
> -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> -- University of Washington School of Medicine

-- 

 Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards,

Remco Post
r.post AT plcs DOT nl
+31 6 248 21 622