Thanks Christian, so that would result in;

1 - raid 1 - OS+active log / archive log  (2d)
2 - raid 10 - db (4d)
3 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d)

Keeping the active / archive logs on the same raid-1 set won't be an issue
I guess as longs as I use two seperate partitions but isn't the backup
speed with this setup limited to the two disks in raid-1 that contain the
active log?

Thanks, Rick



On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christian Svensson <
Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se> wrote:

> Hi Rick,
> We hade a wild discussion about this last Tivoli User Group Meeting in
> Sweden.
> And I think most people got the best performance by using
>
> RAID 1+0 on DB on as fast disk as possible. (Fusion I/O, SSD or 15K SAS)
> RAID 1 for Active/Archive Log
> Mutliple RAID 5 for Diskpool
>
> Best Regards
> Christian Svensson
>
> Cell: +46-70-325 1577
> E-mail: Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se
> CPU2TSM Support: http://www.cristie.se/cpu2tsm-supported-platforms
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Från: Rick Kluitman [rick.kluitman AT GMAIL DOT COM]
> Skickat: den 22 mars 2012 08:20
> Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Ämne: Best disk layout for new TSM setup with the hardware I got, please
> advise
>
> Hi,
>
> I am pretty new to TSM and have the task of installing a new setup, I read
> a lot about the TSM server installation and did some tests in a VMware
> setup.
>
> The question I have is this, I have a HP server with 10 internal SAS disks
> on a raidcontroller that does raid1/raid5/raid10 that will become our TSM
> server.
> I am thinking a 4 disk raid 5 for the diskpool will be OK, but what do I do
> for metadata?
>
> Do I make one big raid 10 for logging and db files, do I split this up?
> I am not sure if 2 or 3 seperate raid sets will be better than one big one,
> and if I do split, do I place the activity log / archive log on the same
> disk (different fs) and the db on a seperate set?
>
> So these are my options I guess;
>
> a)
> 1 - raid 1 - OS+archive log (2d)
> 2 - raid 1 - active log (2d)
> 3 - raid 1 - db (2d)
> 4 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d)
>
> b)
> 1 - raid 10 - OS+archive log +active log (4d)
> 2 - raid 1 - db (2d) -
> 4 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d)
>
> c)
> 1 - raid 10 - OS+archive log + active log + db (6d)
> 2 - raid 5 - diskpool (4d)
>
>
> I think option B might be the best option but I am not sure about the 2
> disks for the TSM db, that might be a huge bottleneck?
> No dedupe on this TSM server so DB size should be ok.
>
> Thank you, Rick
>