ADSM-L

Re: Migration Processes from Diskpools to Tape Devices

2001-02-17 22:59:52
Subject: Re: Migration Processes from Diskpools to Tape Devices
From: David Longo <David.Longo AT HEALTH-FIRST DOT ORG>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:00:07 -0500
Do a   q stg "stgpoolname" f=d
Look at the  "Migration Processes" parameter.  This specifies the max number of 
processes for migration of this stgpool.  You can change this with the update 
stgpool command to give more proceeses (more tape drives migrating at the same 
time.

Your migration activity also depends on the High and Low migration Pct 
parameters.



David B. Longo
System Administrator
Health First, Inc.
3300 Fiske Blvd.
Rockledge, FL 32955-4305
PH      321.434.5536
Pager  321.634.8230
Fax:    321.434.5525
david.longo AT health-first DOT org


>>> hfinley AT LONGS DOT COM 02/17/01 12:37AM >>>
    We recently added 40 GBs to our backup diskpool in an effort to speed
up our backup processes. In large part that has worked, however, now we
find the tape devices sit idle all night and, to make matters worse, the
migration process from the diskpool to tape (a six 3590 3494 library)
does not seem to engage more than one drive. So I believe we are actually
worse off now because we have merely moved the bottleneck from the client
to the server to the diskpool to the tape device and now our tape drives
sit idle most of the night. I have contacted TSM support (we are at 4.12)
and they indicated that the migration processes setting (which has been
set as high as 6) does not translate to tape drive mounts as I might have
imagined. Instead in a logic I found difficult to follow, processes are
linked to nodes or at least node filespaces in the backup pool. From
their perspective there appears to be no way to specify migration tape
mounts.
    What we are aiming for is a large enough diskpool to buffer the
entire night's backup volume and then to run our copypool process for
offsiting our copy tapes followed by a migration of the data from the
diskpool to the resident tapes in the library (disk caching is not really
a goal at this time). We can throw a couple hundred GBs at the diskpools,
but that is no help if we can't get the data off the disks in a timely
manner. If we could get the offload to both the copypool and the local
library to take place on multiple drives I think our plan could succeed.
Can anyone shed any light on how we might achieve our aims?

Kind regards,

Hagen Finley
Longs Drugs


"MMS <health-first.org>" made the following
 annotations on 02/17/01 23:05:15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary, or legally privileged information.  No confidentiality or 
privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this 
message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your 
system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender.  You must not, 
directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of 
this message if you are not the intended recipient.  Health First reserves the 
right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any views or 
opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, 
except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a 
particular entity;  and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such 
views or opinions.
This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary, or legally privileged information.  No confidentiality or 
privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this 
message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your 
system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender.  You must not, 
directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of 
this message if you are not the intended recipient.  Health First reserves the 
right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any views or 
opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, 
except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a 
particular entity;  and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such 
views or opinions.

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