Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec
1998-09-16 03:38:58
Subject: |
Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec |
From: |
"Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF." <Rene.Lambelet AT NESTLE DOT COM> |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:38:58 +0200 |
Hello,
since using adsm server OS/390 3.1 and clients 3.1 (Netware, NT), we are
very happy with backup and restore performance! Even for large Netware
volumes containing more than 400'000 files. It was catastrophic with V 2.
N.B. Netware backups have always been much slower than NT (300 KB/s for
Netware, 2'000 KB/s for NT), as long we used the IBM 3172 ATM box between
the clients and our mainframe OS/390.
We assumed then that the IP stack in Netware was worse than in NT. This
assumption was wrong:
we changed the 3172 for a CIP card from CISCO (escon <-> atm): Netware
backups reach 2'000 KB/s, comparable to the NT throughput!!
So, the CISCO card accelerated the backups (6 times faster for Netware). The
NT backups are limited by the client hardware probably.
Regards,
René Lambelet - *3543 - *A581
Nestec SA - 55, Av. Nestlé - CH-1800 Vevey
Tel: ++41/21/924'35'43 / Fax: ++41/21/924'45'89
E-Mail: rene.lambelet AT nestle DOT com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sims [SMTP:rbs AT BU DOT EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:45 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec
>
> >What is most interesting about this topic is that there has yet to be a
> >reply from an IBM representative.
> >This is a common problem to which IBM has yet to offer a satisfactory
> >resolution.
>
> >ADSM restores are extremely slow when recovering a large number of small
> >files. This problem is particularly bad with Novell clients but is also
> true
> >for NT and UNIX. As this problem usually becomes apparent under the most
> >difficult circumstances; a disaster recovery, it is particularly
> worrying.
>
> Well, IBM is hearing the complaints, but they would be able to better
> appreciate the problems some customers are having if specifics were
> provided
> as to just what the topology is, what PTF levels are involved, and what
> options are being used. That is, just saying that restorals are slow is
> not
> all that helpful.
>
> For example... I recently helped a site which popped up on another list,
> complaining similarly about slow restoral times. They had an MVS server
> and
> Novell clients, both running ADSM V.3 code. They had reasonably expected
> that
> by default that options like Small File Aggregation were active. But not.
> And they had not tried No Query Restore, which is particularly beneficial
> in
> the presence of large numbers of files. They tried these and reported
> that
> restoral times were "dramatically improved".
>
> File system topology and client system speed also play large roles in the
> restoral rates you will see, plus network configuration, buffer sizes,
> etc.
> Obviously, you have to take many factors into consideration, based upon
> the
> particulars of your site, and then try controlled experiments as you
> change
> variables. It's all worth doing, and at a minimum will give you both a
> sense
> of control and a basis for measuring the effect of new options and
> hardware as
> they become available. Appreciate how much it frustrates IBM developers
> when
> customers complain that ADSM is slow, but it turns out that customers have
> not
> taken advantage of features which the developers went to great pains to
> introduce to improve performance.
>
> Richard Sims, Boston University OIT
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, (continued)
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Brandon Moore
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Shane
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Christo Heuer
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, TJ Saijoen
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, jason
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Keenan Stratton
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Richard Sims
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, David Hendrix
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Carl Makin
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Herwig Evenepoel
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec,
Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF. <=
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Gene Mangum
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Richard Sims
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Dan Kronstadt
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF.
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Gene Mangum
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Jackson, Sandye
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Jeff Connor
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Burtenshaw, Barry L.
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Dan Giles
- Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec, Dan Giles
|
|
|