Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool

Eric, I meant collocation. It can be by node, by group, by filespace or no
collocation.

On Dec 12, 2007 11:06 AM, Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM <Eric-van.Loon AT klm DOT com>
wrote:

> Hi Helder!
> I'm 100% sure reclamation is set to 60% on all storage pools on all
> servers.
> Kindest regards,
> Eric van Loon
> KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Helder Garcia
> Sent: woensdag 12 december 2007 12:43
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Strange difference between Primary and Copypool
>
> Larry, DB backup tapes does not belong to any particular storage pool.
> Anyway, your environment shows more acceptable numbers than Eric's. A
> little delta (106 to 112) in the number of tapes is always present due
> to reclamation running in different moments, incomplete expiration
> processes an other factors.
> Eric, are you sure you don't have different collocation settings on the
> storage pools?
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 8:04 PM, Larry Peifer <Larry.Peifer AT sce DOT com> wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > I'm interested in learning more about the particulars of your
> environment.
> >  We have been experiencing some odd behavior with our tape pools after
>
> > recently upgrading the TSM server to 5.4.0 and the Clients (Windows
> > and
> > Unix) to 5.4.1 clients.  We also have a primary tape pool library with
>
> > a copy pool tape library as an electronic vault.
> >
> > Also,  what tape library hardware and tape media are you using?
> >
> > We have IBM 3584 libraries with LTO2 drives and LTO2 tapes using
> > Ultrium2C device type.
> >
> > Our usage is similar to you:
> >
> > Storagepool                                           MB
> > TAPEPOOL6                                    29154145.05
> Primary
> > TAPEPOOL7                                    28563583.89        Copy
> >
> > Seq. Stg. Pool         Volumes in Use
> > TAPEPOOL6                         106
> > TAPEPOOL7                         112  (includes 4 DBBackup tapes)
> >
> > We have several PMR's (3584 h/w and TSM s/w) open with IBM regarding a
>
> > large increase in # of tapes used to hold our data after making the
> > upgrade.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andy Huebner <Andy.Huebner AT ALCONLABS DOT COM> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor
> > Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> > 12/11/2007 09:29 AM
> > Please respond to
> > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> >
> >
> > To
> > ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would say it is normal to have a little more data in the primary
> > pool due to on-going backups.  We have backups running all the time.
> > Since the primary and copy tapes are created differently I am not
> > surprised that there is a different number of tapes.  Has there always
>
> > been more copy than primary tapes?  I would think the tape count could
>
> > swing the other way.
> >
> > Andy Huebner
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:05 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool
> >
> > Hi Jim!
> > My copy pool is an online copy pool. Tapes (in fact virtual tapes) are
>
> > not checked out, nor removed from the (virtual) library.
> > I didn't state that my copy pool is larger than the primary pool
> > (hence my line "although the copy pool (DL_LBU3_CPY_1) contains less
> > data, it uses more tapes!!!") and I also stated that both storage
> > pools are reclaimed at 60%... On a daily bases..
> > Kindest regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> > KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Jim Young
> > Sent: dinsdag 11 december 2007 14:26
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: Strange difference between Primary and Copypool
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > My theory works if the following is true.
> >
> > 1) the copy pool is offsite.
> > 2) your statement that the copy pool is larger than the primary pool
> > was incorrect. Its the other way round looing at the numbers given.
> >
> > Original sizings
> > Storagepool MB
> > ------------------ ---------------------------------
> > DL_LBU3_CPY_1 26489427.98
> > DL_LBU3_PRI_1 27658559.10
> >
> > As the tapes onsite (in the library) can be mounted over and over
> > again putting new data at the end of the volume until full, you have a
>
> > non-tape wasting process,
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > The offsite tapes are created and then shipped offsite. The offsite
> > tapes can only be recreated from onsite data and as such, unless they
> > trigger the 60% free reclamation they will sit there until 40%
> > utilized, never defraging, just taking up lots of your lovely tapes.
> > Additional waste can be caused by collocation as well. Not knowing if
> > that is used for nodes in this pool i cannot comment.  Plus we don't
> > know the size of files you are backing up against the size of the
> > tapes. ie. a 36Gb database file on a 40Gb DLT holds 90% of the tape.
> >
> > I find this SQL useful for identifying tapes that get stuck and not
> > reclaimed.
> >
> >    select volume_name, stgpool_name,pct_utilized, status from volumes
> -
> >    where pct_utilized < 40 and stgpool_name <>'DISKPOOL' -
> >    order by pct_utilized, stgpool_name, volume_name
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > Cattles plc Registered in England No: 543610 Kingston House, Centre 27
>
> > Business Park, Woodhead Road, Birstall, Batley, WF179TD.
> >
> > The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and
> > not of Cattles plc or any of its subsidiaries.The content of this
> > e-mail is confidential, may contain privileged material and is
> > intended solely for the recipient(s) named above.
> >
> > If you receive this in error, please notify the sender immediately and
>
> > delete this e-mail.
> >
> > Please note that neither Cattles plc nor the sender accepts any
> > responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the
> > email and attachments(if any). No contracts or agreements may be
> > concluded on behalf of Cattles plc or its subsidiaries by means of
> > email communications.
> >
> > This message has been scanned for Viruses by Cattles and Sophos
> > Puremessage scanning service.
> > **********************************************************************
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only.
> > If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the
> > e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and
> > that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
>
> > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and
> > delete this message.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or
> > its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for
> > any delay in receipt.
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> >
> > This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be
> > legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an
> > authorized representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited
>
> > from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or
> its attachments.
> > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> > immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and
>
> > any attachments.
> > Thank you.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Helder Garcia
> **********************************************************************
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee
> only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part
> of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or
> distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or
> attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately
> by return e-mail, and delete this message.
>
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries
> and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or
> incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor
> responsible for any delay in receipt.
> Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> registered number 33014286
> **********************************************************************
>



--
Helder Garcia