We don't have anywhere's near 1.4T of data, but we do have 250 machines.
I know our avg filesize is much smaller than 40Kb, so the number of files
we manage in our ADSM database is correspondingly higher.  I think we
have about 3 million files in our db now, and about 18.5 million database
records.  We run on an RS/6000, 2 channels of disks.

I suspect it is important to spread your db on as many spindles as you can,
to optimize performance.  We haven't done that yet.  We have 2 duplexed dbvols
on 4 different drives and 2 different channels.  We do see a bit of I/O wait
(as reported by the unix sar/sag commands).  I'd be interested in hearing
what others think about whether faster disks would help aleviate I/O wait
or not.  I suspect much of the wait is due to seeking, and not so much to
actually transferring the data, so I'm not sure that faster disks would
help.  We're currently using Seagate Barracuda's now.

If you think you'd find it useful to talk, feel free to e-mail or call me.
..Paul

Paul Zarnowski                     Phone:   607/255-4757
Cornell Information Technologies   Fax:     607/255-6523
Cornell University                 US Mail: 315 CCC, Ithaca, NY 14853-2601
--
On Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:36:55 +0000 paul (p.) shields said:
On Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:36:55 +0000 paul (p.) shields said:
>I am looking for people who have adsm configured in an environment similiar
>to ours. We are currently looking at backing up about 1.4T of data spread
>across about 200 machines.
>
>The important part is the following. Our average file size is in the 20 -
>40Kb range which under our current evaluation and test environment seems to
>be stressing the database on the RS/6000-based server.
>
>Is there anyone out there with similiar average filesizes, backing up at
>least several Gigs of data that would be willing to iscuss your experiences
>in performance and configuring the servers for optimal performance.
>
>Paul Shields