All of this depends on the amount of data involved, not the number of
nodes.  We have some TSM instances with 50 nodes that finish their backups
by 3AM or so.  and all the house-keeping finishes by 6AM.


Regards,
Shawn
________________________________________________
Shawn Drew





Internet
rrhodes AT FIRSTENERGYCORP DOT COM

Sent by: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
09/18/2009 11:49 AM
Please respond to
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU


To
ADSM-L
cc

Subject
Re: [ADSM-L] TSM architecture






Our TSM servers are busy around the clock.  In fact, 6am-noon is some of
the busiest with migrations going on.








             "Haberstroh,
             Debbie (IT)"
             <HABERDE@VOUGHTAI                                          To
             RCRAFT.COM>               ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
             Sent by: "ADSM:                                            cc
             Dist Stor
             Manager"                                              Subject
             <[email protected]         TSM architecture
             .EDU>


             09/18/2009 11:36
             AM


             Please respond to
             "ADSM: Dist Stor
                 Manager"
             <[email protected]
                   .EDU>






Hi All,

My current environment is TSM 5.5.3, 1 library manager, 3 database
servers.
These are installed on a P550 AIX 5.3 system in separate LPAR's.  We have
355 clients, 200 + are active.  My current TSM databases are 100GB, 65-82%
utilized.  We are going to be doing a large  business object installation
which will add 30-50 new clients including multiple Oracle databases.  Our
proposal was to add an additional TSM server to handle the new
requirements.

We have a new "architect" that is not very familiar with TSM and his
proposal is to "stack" TSM on another server that is running a different
application.  His argument is that TSM does most of it's work at night and
the application (which one is TBD) does most of it's work during the day.
>From what I know, due to TSM's resource utilization, it should be on it's
own hardware.

Has anyone tried to do this and what were your results?  I would love to
get some good arguments to take back that would support our original
position to install on separate hardware.  Thanks to everyone for your
ideas.

Debbie Haberstroh
TSM Server Administration


-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
the original message.



This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for
the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error,
please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord
with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial,
is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the
integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will)
not therefore be liable for the message if modified. Please note that certain
functions and services for BNP Paribas may be performed by BNP Paribas RCC, Inc.