>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:08:22 -0500, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT 
>> EDU> said:


> Thanks for the feedback.

> Yes, I realize you can't beat AIX for I/O bandwidth.  Unfortunately,
> it comes down to $$$$$$ (doesn't it, always).

I think your $/performance-unit is much better on AIX than it will be
in intel-land.  I call the x86 option cheap now, pricey later.  But
you've already said that AIX isn't on the table.

> I agree it would be beneficial to break things up. However, this
> would lead to even more contention for resources (tape, tape
> libraries) than we already have.  We have enough issues juggling
> 4-TSM servers against 3-tape libraries (1-3494 2-3583).

I don't understand how you concluded this.  Whatever the count of
servers you're using, the drive use should be related to the client
node count and behavior, and should not be varying too much.  Am I
missing something?

> I hadn't really thought about running multiple TSM server instances
> on one machine.  Not sure if it is worth the effort/risk!

If you are already running multiple TSM servers, you've got the
coordination infrastructure in place already.  (or you don't in which
case God Bless You) That won't be much different if you've got 2
servers on one box.  I'm running 11 on one box now: Having relatively
small databases makes a huge improvement in reliablity.


- Allen S. Rout