---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08  14:42  S.SHEPPARD     (SHS)    Re: ADSM-L Win2K3 backu

Can I infer from you comments that you find the FILE DEVCLASS to be a
better performer?  This is our first server on Unix; our other 2 TSM
servers are running on z/OS and have other known bottlenecks.  I hadn't
ever considered trying non DISK DEVCLASS for the primary pools.  Perhaps
I should.

Thanks
Sam Sheppard
San Diego Data Processing Corp.
(858)-581-9668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------`


---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08  12:19  ..NETMAIL     ()     Re: ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
From: "Richard Sims" <rbs AT bu DOT edu>
Subject: Re: ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:51:23 -0500
To: "Sam Sheppard" <SHS AT SDDPC.SANNET DOT GOV>
_________________________________Top_of_Message_________________________________

On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Sam Sheppard wrote:

> ---------------------------- Top of message
> ----------------------------
>>> --> 02-01-08  11:29  S.SHEPPARD     (SHS)    Re: ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
>
> Looks like the problem is with our disk pool.  I ran a test
> directly to
> LTO3 tape and performance improved dramatically, anywhere from 40 to
> 70MB/sec.
>
> So, I've got my Solaris guy looking at his disk array for potential
> write problems, since restore performance was not really a problem.
>

Hi, Sam -

If this is a TSM "DISK" devclass stgpool, that may be the cause of
the drag.  In my use of DISK, I've been continually disappointed:
there seems to be a lot of overhead involved with it, particularly
with multiple use, particularly with clients backing up into it and
migration happening from it.  There seems to be a lot of block
management/locking involved.

    Richard


-----------------------------------------------------------------------`