ADSM-L

Restoreperformance 3590 versus 3592

2005-05-19 09:32:14
Subject: Restoreperformance 3590 versus 3592
From: Schaub Joachim Paul ABX-SECE-ZH <Joachim.Schaub AT ABRAXAS DOT CH>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:32:05 +0200
Dear Group

We have a lot of Windows- and Novellmachines with Files counted between 2 Mio. 
and 7 Mio.
Restore from 3590 even with Filespacecollcation takes its time. On the Novell 
all files are on 1 volume (sic!).
Now we are looking for 3592 drives. Our IBM businesspartner (no streamin - no 
fun) means we speed up to 40MB/sec. even with data incremented for ever.
Restore, streamin, 40MB/sec. hmm....
The 3590E keeps 40GB nativ, the 3592 keeps 300GB nativ, if both of them where 
same filled, the speed on 3592 is 5* faster buth the cap. is 7.5* more, do we 
realy get out this performance?
So the strong incremented (yes,yes progressiv backup) data from one node is on 
a 3592 spreaded over 300GB together with other clientdata (maybe groupcollo 
after 5.3.?).
Env. TSM Server 5.2.3.3 on Z/OS with most Windows and Novellclient on > 5.2

any help appreciated

regards
Joachim


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joachim Paul Schaub
System Spezialist
IBM Certified Deployment Professional - Tivoli Storage Manager
Abraxas Informatik AG
Beckenhofstrasse 23
CH-8006 Zürich
Schweiz / Switzerland

Telefon: +41 (043) 259 34 41
Telefax: +41 (043) 259 42 82
E-Mail: mailto:joachim.schaub AT abraxas DOT ch
Internet: http://www.abraxas.ch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      Abraxas - Das Immer-besser-Prinzip
             http://www.abraxas.ch/DasImmerBesserPrinzip
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Restoreperformance 3590 versus 3592, Schaub Joachim Paul ABX-SECE-ZH <=