Hey, what the hell was your raid-10 like? Raid10 is by no means slower than raid1, if correctly implemented (by the means of the raid controller). I had it previously on an ICP-Vortex controller, and
Author: Zlatko Krastev <acit AT ATTGLOBAL DOT NET>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 03:36:43 +0300
It depends on how the RAID controller implemented RAID-10 (or RAID-1E). If your write request is small (and random as in TSM DB) you can easily hit read-before-write penalty usually found in RAID-5.
Hallo Zlatko, both the originator and me wrote about disastreous performance with stripping raid-10. You write about read-before write penalty with raid-5. I do not understand? regards Juraj [mailto:
Author: Steve Freeman <sfreeman AT ACRLIMITED.CO DOT UK>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:00:55 +0100
Please could someone advise me on the following issue we have with tsm. I am a TSM novice and would appreciate some pointers etc. Environment : TSM 4.2.0 AIX4.3.3 ML09 Server and Client on same Serve
Author: Orville Lantto <orville.lantto AT DTREND DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:02:39 -0500
What are your throughput values? Tape is not necessarily slower than disk, especially when the data is compressed on the tape drive. Orville L. Lantto Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatre
Author: "Pearson, Dave" <DCPearson AT SNOPUD DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:31:03 -0700
ON Tape... It take time to unwind, take the tape out, put another tape in then start processing... With Diskpool. Thre is non of this. My thought Dave Pearson
Author: Tab Trepagnier <Tab.Trepagnier AT LAITRAM DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:31:04 -0500
Steve, Ultimately, you're limited to media write speeds. For example, my LTO drives write at 12 MB/s sustained; my 18 GB SCSI drives write at 16 MB/s sustained. Nothing I do to TSM will increase thos
Author: Orville Lantto <orville.lantto AT DTREND DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:02:32 -0500
Yes, there is overhead on tape, but the tape drives will theoretically write at rated write speed TIMES THE COMPRESSION RATIO. I have seen a sustained 60 MB/second into a 3590 tape drive. It required
Author: "Seay, Paul" <seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:04:51 -0400
You are probably running at source disk speed in both cases. Just because it if fibre disk does not mean it is fast. It really depends on how you configured it, what type it is, etc. Paul D. Seay, Jr
Hi, I have noticed that it is very bad for performance to have 10+ diskpools (we had close to 50 volumes) on one raid5 volume, and have multimpe volumes being accessed at the same time. We greatly in
Author: Dirk Kastens <Dirk.Kastens AT UNI-OSNABRUECK DOT DE>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:09:17 +0200
Hi, Seemed to be a faulty raid controller. We always used raid5 for TSM volumes and never got any errors or bottlenecks. Of course, we use different raids for stgpools and the database. Regards, Dirk
Our experience with disk pools on RAID5 volumes has indicated that slow performance is the norm rather than the exception. This is especially true when more than one operation was running at a time,
Author: Alex Paschal <AlexPaschal AT FREIGHTLINER DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:44:26 -0700
Steve, You can check your disk performance. When you're backing up to diskpool, check your CPU's Wait I/O using vmstat 1 10 If you're getting significant Wait I/O, you can do an iostat 1 10 to check
Author: "Seay, Paul" <seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:59:07 -0400
What data rates are you getting? What type of files are you backing up, big (over 1G), small (less than 50K), filesystem, databases? Is the TSM database on the same volume group as the diskpools? Is
Author: Mark Stapleton <stapleto AT BERBEE DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:45:39 -0500
A question: why are RAIDing your TSM diskpool? There's no need for redundancy in the diskpool, since the diskpool is not the mission-critical component of your backup system. It's the *tape* pool you
Author: "Seay, Paul" <seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:46:53 -0400
There is one caveat Mark. If the loss of a backup is a critical failure to an application, then you must Raid-1 or Raid-5 the pool. I have applications that take processing cycle backups several time
The disk storage pools need to be RAID-1+. It's "other people's data" and you are responsible for it, from the moment it is backed up from their client systems. As you have discovered, performance is
Hey, what the hell was your raid-10 like? Raid10 is by no means slower than raid1, if correctly implemented (by the means of the raid controller). I had it previously on an ICP-Vortex controller, and