Hello Stephan,

We are facing the same problem. Our "big" file servers (NT) are using 100GB
disks partitions (filespaces for ADSM).
This kind of "big" filespaces gives two kinds of problems with ADSM:
1) The process time on the client. A 100GB filespace with user data may
contain up to 4 millions of files.
    ADSM Client (NT) 3.1 takes easely 6 to 8  hours only to scan 4 millions
files. (Bi-processor NT server with big memory)
2) The transfert time, in case of restore is too long.
    We are using an ATM between our "big" (NT) clients and our (MVS) server.
The top speed is +/- 4GB / hour => a minimum of 25 hours for 100 GB.

It is a long time that I claim by IBM for improvements on that subject.

For me, a 20GB filespace is a maximum for ADSM like it is now.

Be sure the next release will be better.......

Best regards,

Francis

_______________________________________________________________________
Francis Maes                    ASLK-CGER Services GIE  - Belgium
ADSM Server Administrator Rue Fossé-aux-Loups, 48 - 1000 Brussels
Storage Management          E@Mail: fr.maes AT cger DOT be



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Stephan Rittmann <srittmann AT FIDUCIA DOT DE>
De : Stephan Rittmann <srittmann AT FIDUCIA DOT DE>
À : ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Date : vendredi 12 mars 1999 14:09
Objet : ADSM and big file-servers


>
> Hi all,
>
>I want to start a discussion about ADSM and backing up big file servers. In
our
>environment we have 16 Mbit token-ring networks and we are using ADSM to
back
>up all of the critical data.
>The biggest file servers that we use at the moment has a 18 GB data
partition.
>Backing up these servers with incremental backup is no problem. It works
for a
>long time, everybody is satisfied about the short backup times. But what
will
>happen  in the case of a disk failure. If the server was very full, you
have to
>restore up to 18 GB. With our kind of netwotk this would take about 20
houres
>or more.
>What I want to say is; The disks in the servers  become bigger and bigger,
the
>backup time is still the same because of the incremental technique from
ADSM.
>I'm sure that most of the useres from ADSM don't think about the long
restore
>times in case of a disk failure.
>The difference between the network speed and the size of the data disks
becomes
>bigger and I see a problem in this fact.
>
>What are you think about these? And how could we solve these problem?
>
>Stephan Rittmann
>FIDUCIA AG, Karlsruhe
>Germany
>
>