Hey Tom.
I don't know that there's a "max" for the drive compression algorithm; it's
a function of the data.
I routinely see 2.1-2.2:1 on basic mixtures of fileservers, print servers,
winders stuff.
Oracle is almost always higher, I expect 3-3.5:1.
I've seen DB2 compress at 6:1.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Kauffman, Tom <KauffmanT AT nibco DOT com>
wrote:
> I'll admit to not having a good grasp of the PCI-E architecture, but I'll
> stand by my statement that you'll need PCI-E to get maximal performance out
> of LTO-4. I'm fairly certain you'll need to go LAN-free to hit the maximum
> as well - I know that's my current bottleneck. As a side note - does anyone
> know what the maximum drive data compression is on LTO-4? I'm getting about
> 4.1 to 1 on SAP/R3-Oracle, with some tapes hitting 3.5 to 3.7 TB before
> becoming full.
>
> I am glad to hear the X86 architecture scales this well - thanks, Kelly.
>
> Tom Kauffman
> NIBCO, Inc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kelly Lipp
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:12 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Preferred TSM Platform
>
> I have to disagree with that. We routinely run multiple (up to six, and
> the only reason it's only six is we don't have any more to test so perhaps
> more will run) LTO4 drives as fast as they want to run using and IBM x3850
> processor. We run four at a time using an x3650. The buses are PCI-E,
> drives are either SAS or FC. Would that box run six or eight of the IBM
> fancy pants drives? I don't know, haven't ever seen it tried.
>
> For most sites, Windows and the crummy little hardware it runs on will be
> just fine. For you big fellas, not so much. If you are in the "gotta push
> 3-6TB/day" Windows will work. For you 10TB/day folks, maybe not.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> CTO
> STORServer, Inc.
> 485-B Elkton Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> www.storserver.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kauffman, Tom
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:39 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Preferred TSM Platform
>
> Yup.
>
> It boils down to Wanda's statement: "I/O, I/O, it's all about I/O" ---
> Wanda Prather
>
> If you can do the work with LTO-1 or -2 drives, or DLT-7000, or similar
> speed/capacity, then Windows will work. When you get into
> high-speed/high-capacity drives the Intel/AMD architecture comes unglued. A
> single LTO-4 drive will use ALL the I/O bandwith of a PCI or PCI-x bus, and
> a significant chunk of a PCIe(1) bus. The challenge becomes one of finding a
> suitable X86 server with multiple PCIe busses in the design.
>
> IBM has the GX series I/O modules with two PCIe busses each for the P6
> architecture that allows for significant I/O bandwith expansion -- for a
> cost, of course.
>
> Tom Kauffman
> NIBCO, Inc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kelly Lipp
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:14 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Preferred TSM Platform
>
> I love it when somebody quotes me! Somebody is listening.
>
> I had this discussion with one of our customers yesterday. It really
> does/should boil down to the OS experience you have on hand. Does the AIX
> platform have more capacity/performance than the best Windows platform? I'm
> guessing it probably does. But at what cost? And then more importantly: do
> either of the platforms have enough for you? If both do, then pick the one
> that makes more sense based on your OS experience. And remember: one can
> always divide and conquer.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> CTO
> STORServer, Inc.
> 485-B Elkton Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> www.storserver.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Allen S. Rout
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:52 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Preferred TSM Platform
>
> >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:57:37 +0100, Henrik Vahlstedt <
> SHWL AT STATOILHYDRO DOT COM> said:
>
> > Time to quote Kelly...
>
> > "So to me it's either AIX or Windows (yes, you can do a lot of TSM
> > on Windows once you get past the bigotry!). Choose whichever one
> > you have the most experience with."
>
> <gollum> Achhhh! It BURNS usss, nassssty windowsss.... </gollum>
>
>
> - Allen S. Rout
> - Prefers AIX for this. *koff* :)
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
> notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
> and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
> notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
> and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
>
|
