Easy answer . . . "it depends" . . .

Here are some questions/comments in no particular order:

Are you on an array today?
Is the array busy and loaded down?
Does it have multiple raidsets?
What kind of drives does it have (sata, fc10k, fc15k)?
I'm not a windows admin - would the drive letters be separate luns?
If separate luns, would you put them on separate raidsets?
If multiple luns but all on the same raidset, then you are basically
gaining a cmd queue for each lun.
If separate luns and you can put them on separate raidsets, then you are
getting many more HDD's working for you.
Are you disk I/O bound now?  If not, then you probably won't see much
difference on matter what you do.
The big advantage of the array is I/O spread across multiple/many spindles
and write-back cache.
If you were using a unix system, I'd say to allocate one lun per raidset,
bring them into a volume group, and create filesystems striped across the
luns.  That's how we do everything.

rick






             Nicholas
             Rodolfich
             <NRodolfich@CMAON                                          To
             THEWEB.COM>               ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
             Sent by: "ADSM:                                            cc
             Dist Stor
             Manager"                                              Subject
             <[email protected]         TSM upgrade v5 --> v6 database
             .EDU>                     storage question


             02/18/2010 02:39
             PM


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






Hello All,

Thanks for your help!

Upgrading a client on Windows 2003 TSM v5.5.3 to Windows 2008 TSM 6.1.3. I
am planning the storage and was wondering if it is worth splitting the
database between multiple file systems. The storage they have for the
database is FCAL on an IBM DS4800. The client's current database is 65GB
and will probably reduce to 55GB after the upgrade when we purge some old
data. I was going to do the following

e:\   database directory
f:\   active log directory
g:\   archive log directory.

I could do this

e:\   database directory
f:\   database directory
g:\   database directory
h:\   active log directory
i:\   archive log directory.

The storage will be all be RAIDed on the DS4800 so I am wondering just how
much if any performance gains I will see if I split the database up into
more file systems. I would also like to solicit any opinions on the storage
configuration (i.e. - RAID?, placement of logs, etc)

Thanks,

Nicholas

-----------------------------------------
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.