> Seems that every action has some re-action.

Sounds like Raibeck's Rule #37: "There is no free lunch"   :-)

Regard,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTivoliStorageManager.html

The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2006-04-25
13:40:27:

> Thanks Richard, et al,
>
> I thought the default RESOURCEUTIL was also the minimal value, so I
> don't think we could lower that any more than it already is.  Using
> MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP is a good idea, as is using 'nice' to
deprioritize.
>
> We have actually been working hard to improve TSM performance so that
> we can restore data more quickly.  Seems that every action has some
> re-action.  Reducing the TSM Server as a bottleneck serves to move
> the bottleneck to the client, where it can interfere with other
applications.
>
> ..Paul
>
> At 02:37 PM 4/25/2006, Richard Sims wrote:
> >Certainly, "de-tuning" the TSM backups will reduce the impact, where
> >the most obvious tactic is to minimize RESOURceutilization. And you
> >can get more drastic via MEMORYEFficientbackup Yes. Depending upon
> >the file population, the influx of the Active files list at the
> >beginning of an incremental will always have a "fixed" impact. Beyond
> >that, you can deprioritize the TSM client process at the OS level.
>
>
> --
> Paul Zarnowski                            Ph: 607-255-4757
> Manager, Storage Systems                  Fx: 607-255-8521
> 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801    Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu