What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
 
The reason we implemented DIRMC is so that when a user restores a file(s) there 
are not extra tape mounts to restore the directories  We ran into this on 
multiple occasions, even when all files were on disk, tape mounts would occur 
because the directories were on tape.
 
Thanks,
 
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: TSM_User [mailto:tsm_user AT YAHOO DOT COM] 
        Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM 
        To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues 
resolved or not.
        
        

        It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file 
type device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned 
from begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers 
that have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool.  Even when none change 
they backup runs from hours on that pool.  With a file type device class only 
the new volumes would be backed up resulting in a much faster backup.  Now all 
that being said this new feature in V5.3 warrents new consideration.  My new 
consideration is to stop using DIRMC pools as the reason they were created in 
the first place has also long been fixed.
        
        Kyle
        
        "Thorneycroft, Doug" <dthorneycroft AT LACSD DOT ORG> wrote:
        OK, after spending a large portion of my day reviewing adsm-l post 
going back to
        2000, I'm still not sure. Does anyone know if there is still a 
performance problem
        running reclamation on a DIRMC random access disk pool?
        I came across one post that said it was supposedly fixed, but 
recommended using
        a file type diskpool to be safe.
        
                       
        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
         Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!