ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Win2008 System State

2009-11-06 13:55:17
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Win2008 System State
From: Andrew Raibeck <storman AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:53:32 -0500
> It should be getting obvious to development that this architecture is
> doomed, and not gonna work for folks in the long term.  Benefits we pick
up
> with the DB performance improvements in 6.1 (yes, it does run really
really
> fast!), will be immediately swallowed up by Win2008 system state....

We want to make sure your TSM databases are fully utilized. :-)

Actually the first sentence above is spot on: We understand the impact of
system state backup for Windows, especially post-Windows 2003 (Vista and
up) and are actively seeking a solution. At this time I do not have any
target timeframe for this, but we do consider it a high priority.

Best regards,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Product Development
Level 3 Team Lead
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Hartford/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page:
http://www.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTivoliStorageManager.html


The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 11/05/2009
02:29:10 PM:

> [image removed]
>
> Re: Win2008 System State
>
> Wanda Prather
>
> to:
>
> ADSM-L
>
> 11/05/2009 02:29 PM
>
> Sent by:
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
>
> Yes, systemstate backups have always been fulls.  (I believe there was
some
> mumbling about Win2K3 changing something to make it possible to do
> incrementals instead of fulls, but I've never seen any difference, and no
> further mumbling has ensued...sort of like the mumbling that told us
Vista
> would be better than those XP annoyances...)
>
> What you have NOT mentioned is the impact of SystemState backups on the
TSM
> DB, because in WIn2K the systemstate backup is at least 2000 objects.
Per
> systemstate backup, meaning per day.  Couple thousand more for 2003.
> Anybody figured out the number for 2008?
>
> I've had customers where I've found a SUBSTANTIAL percentage of their TSM
DB
> taken up with (pretty useless) system state backups, with just WIn2K and
> Win2K3.   Win2008 will blow up a lot of TSM data bases, looks like.
>
> And I've recently run into customers that have put WIndows on the C:
drive,
> installed their Apps (including TSM) on the D: drive.  But adsm.sys
always
> goes on the boot (C:) drive, which then frequently runs out of disk
space,
> causing the backup schedule to fail.
>
> The only defences I've come up with:
>
> 1) turn off the systemstate backup with DOMAIN -systemstate, and add
> preschedulecmd to invoke ntbackup of systemstate to a flat file, which
can
> be directed to any drive, not just C:  ALso has the advantage that
> systemstate becomes ONE object, not thousands
>
> 2) bind systemstate backups to a mgmt class that keeps only a limited
number
> of versions, especially if in a client domain with otherwise long
retention
> times.
>
> It should be getting obvious to development that this architecture is
> doomed, and not gonna work for folks in the long term.  Benefits we pick
up
> with the DB performance improvements in 6.1 (yes, it does run really
really
> fast!), will be immediately swallowed up by Win2008 system state....
>
> W