Author: "Kauffman, Tom" <KauffmanT AT NIBCO DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:50:26 -0500
I'm looking at 'first causes' for my off-site copy imbalance in my primary archive pool - and I've run into something 'interesting'. Some background - The archive pool (called ARCHIVEPOOL) has 5 disk
Is cache=yes on that pool? Are you talking about percent utilized or percent migratable? I'm reasonably sure you know the difference but thought I'd confirm... Kelly Lipp CTO STORServer, Inc. 485-B E
Author: Mark Stapleton <Mark.Stapleton AT CDW DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:40 -0600
What's the collocation on that pool set for? If it's collocated by node or by group, you might be seeing each node migrating. -- Mark I'm looking at 'first causes' for my off-site copy imbalance in m
Author: "Kauffman, Tom" <KauffmanT AT NIBCO DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:15:13 -0500
Cacheing is not enabled (it wouldn't be effective anyway, what with washing 800 GB to 1.1 TB nightly through a 41 GB pool). Here's the configuration: tsm: ADSM>q stg archivepool f=d Storage Pool Name
Author: Mark Stapleton <Mark.Stapleton AT CDW DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:14:01 -0600
Is the destination pool collocated? -- Mark Stapleton (mark.stapleton AT cdw DOT com) CDW Cacheing is not enabled (it wouldn't be effective anyway, what with washing 800 GB to 1.1 TB nightly through
Author: "Kauffman, Tom" <KauffmanT AT NIBCO DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0500
Duh! Good point! I just set the nest pool up for collocation by group, with my trouble-maker in a group by itself to see if I could improve the copy process. And it *just* dawns on me the base source