FWIW,
When you upgrade to 6.1, your TSM server will be running Websphere (for the
ISC) and DB2, plus TSM.
I think your current way of "stacking" via LPARs is a better choice.
W
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Shawn Drew <
shawn.drew AT americas.bnpparibas DOT com> wrote:
> 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.
>
|
