Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?
2004-08-06 15:23:09
==> In article <FA2FBFCAE6E4CC40990C321ED0BC68921AEE6F AT
acsanchor1.corp.acsalaska DOT com>, "Levinson, Donald A." <dlevinso AT
ACSALASKA DOT COM> writes:
> Can anyone tell me how they defined their sequential FILE devclass and how
> the underlying hardware is setup? It seems like the best way to do this is
> to have multiple physical disks and spread the TSM volumes across the disks
> in a way to encourage spreading the i/o across the spindles.
I've got a large LV striped across 5 5-disk RAIDs of 36GB SSA disk.
I use this space in a manner similar to DISK stgpools, as landing-pad space
expected to be emptied most nights, so I'm less concerned about the
fail-one-RAID == fail-whole-filesystem problem.
The 5 disk raids were recommended as sweet spots for performance. I find the
overhead a little oogey, butI can see that 15-disk RAID might be a wee tad
constraining.
- Allen S. Rout
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Otto Schakenbos
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Mueller, Ken
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Rushforth, Tim
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Paul Zarnowski
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Levinson, Donald A.
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?,
asr <=
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Rushforth, Tim
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Tab Trepagnier
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Levinson, Donald A.
- Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?, Robert Clark
|
|
|