On 14 Apr 2003 at 10:00, Matt Simpson wrote:

> At 8:16 AM -0005 4/14/03, Richard L. Rhodes wrote:
> >Our current TSM server uses Shark storage.  We run a 80gb TSM db on 2
> >shark raidsets (8 packs) of 18gb drives.   All 20 db volumes are in
> >this same filesystem along with the log(5gb), spread across all 18
> >spindles.
>
> A lot of this stuff is still pretty hazy to me, but does that mean
> you're not using raw volumes for the DB?  IBM recommended that we use
> raw volumes for performance reasons.  We're also running on a Shark.
> We have a 60gb database spread across 9 dbvolumes, all raw.
> Considering how much Shark I/O is virtual, would we be better off
> defining file systems on those partitions and defining multiple DB
> vols per partition? --

Boy, I wish I had an answer for you.  I'm not sure what is best.  All
I can really say is that ours has worked very well.  Our staging
pools are all raw volumes - but our db and log afe filesystems.  This
was what the IBM help setup when the helped with our initial
installation.  To say that we spent many, many hours discussing
pro/con of shark configuration is an understatement.

The rest of our config has 2 staging pool volumes of 50gb each  per
shark raidset.  Each raidset is a shark 8 pack of 18gb drives. In
all, we have 12 raidsets for staging pools - that's 24 raw volumes
total.



-----------------------------------------
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.