You guys (and gals) mind if I jump in with a server to server problem.
We're also setting up our site for electronic vaulting thru the server
to server functionality. We have two TSM 3.7.3.8 servers (H70 2 CPU's
1gb mem with AIX 4.3.3) each at a different location of which both
will act as a DB and copypool backup for the other.
When testing the setup we came across a problem when restoring from
virtual volumes, the restore would run excrutiatingly slow.
The way we tested this was as follows:
On the same server as the target TSM server (as in virtual volume
target server) we setup a source TSM server.
To get some data into the the source server a client backup was
initiated putting a 25 mb file on tape (no diskpools defined) then a
storage pool backup was made of the primary tape pool using a server
device class on the target server, thus giving us the necessary
virtual volumes.
When a restore was executed for the same data on the source server
(i.e. from a local tape volume) it took the server->client 15 seconds
to recover the data.
After the local tape volume was set to destroyed and a restore was
once more initiated the data was retrieved from the virtual volume but
took almost 3 minutes to complete.
We did the same for 6 files with a total of 225 mb, local restore will
take about 2 minutes, virtual volume restore more than 23 minutes.
I'm not going to guess how long it will take to restore multiple
gigabytes of copy pool data !!!!
We have a PMR open with Tivoli but they haven't a clue as to why the
virtual volume restores are so slow.
Anybody seen this behaviour or know about it ?
regards Walter Ridderhof
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Server-to-server COPYPOOL, anyone?
Author: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> at INET-1
Date: 11/3/00 2:54 PM
>Still, I'd be grateful for further *sizing* and configuration hints.
I would think that sizing for a copypool is simply the same size as your
primary data?
What I notice at our site is that we use one server as a pure target server,
the only nodes defined on this machine are ADSM/TSM servers. The two source
servers have databases of 58Gb and 40Gb, but the target database is only
812Mb!
> > secondary site, and ideas how to choose the MAXCAPACITY
> > of virtual volumes (in relation to tape capacity).
We have 10Gb MAXCAPACITY. The server to server process marks new volumes as
full as soon as it opens them so it uses each volume only once to write to.
This means that your virtual volumes could be any size between 0.01 and 10
Gb. On the target we have a disk storage pool for each source server, 106Gb
and 78Gb
One server has 2537 virtual volumes with an average size of 4,7Gb. The other
server copied 43,6 Gb to the copy pools today over 100Mb ethernet.
Erm,...don't know what else to say. Feel free to write direct to my email
address if you have any other questions.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
ATTENTION:
The information in this electronic mail message is private and
confidential, and only intended for the addressee. Should you
receive this message by mistake, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this
message is strictly prohibited. Please inform the sender by
reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
opening it.
Messages and attachments are scanned for all viruses known.
If this message contains password-protected attachments, the
files have NOT been scanned for viruses by the ING mail domain.
Always scan attachments before opening them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
|
