ADSM-L

Re: performance question

2001-10-01 13:55:28
Subject: Re: performance question
From: Jeff Bach <jdbach AT WAL-MART DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:52:12 -0500
The FTP transfer rate is very useful ... even if the ADSM network data
transfer rate has bugs ...

I believe I understand what Andy is referring to, but Wanda is referring to
FTP.   If FTP is for instance 5 Megs per second or 20 seconds moving a 100
Meg file across the network, and ADSM is 1 Meg per second or 100 Seconds
moving a 100 Meg file across the network, then obviously to most SysAdmin,
it is not a network problem.   If you get about the same, it is client disk,
network or server disk 95% of the time.

Jeff Bach
Home Office Open Systems Engineering
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

WAL-MART CONFIDENTIAL


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:storman AT US.IBM DOT COM]
        Sent:   Monday, October 01, 2001 12:14 PM
        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        Subject:        Re: performance question

        The network transfer rate is not particularly useful (see APAR
IC30767),
        so don't use that to judge your TSM performance. If you want a
reasonable
        idea of what how fast your TSM client can push data, your best bet
is to
        do a selective backup of a very large file (say, several hundred or
more
        MB), and look at the aggregate data transfer rate.

        Regards,

        Andy

        Andy Raibeck
        IBM Tivoli Systems
        Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
        Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
        Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

        The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
        The command line is your friend.
        "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.




        "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>
        Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
        10/01/2001 09:35
        Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


                To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
                cc:
                Subject:        Re: performance question



        Try running FTP.  Send a sizeable file (at least 100 MB) from your
client
        machine to the TSM server, several times, and see if you can get a
        consistent MB/sec throughput rate.

        If it is about the same as your TSM backup throughput, then the
problem is
        network related.
        If it is a lot faster, then look for something in TSM, or in the
client
        file
        system.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rob Schroeder [mailto:robs AT FAMOUSFOOTWEAR DOT COM]
        Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:28 PM
        To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        Subject: Re: performance question


        I have turned compression off, but to no avail.  The network card is
not
        set to auto-negotiate, and all the settings are verified and
correct. Both
        machines are well oversized with 512 MB of memory and dual
processors that
        are not being used anything but marginally.  Any other ideas?

        Rob Schroeder
        Famous Footwear




        "PINNI, BALANAND (SBCSI)" <bp3965 AT SBC DOT COM>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on
09/28/2001
        06:14:52 PM

        Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT 
EDU>

        Sent by:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>


        To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        cc:

        Subject:  Re: performance question


        Rob look at this o/p.I have only 100mbs/sec NIC Card.We also have
fast
        switches.
        It should atleast give u 8mbs/sec network xfer rate.I do with
        compression=yes on client side.
        Try to do backup at some other time and see the throughput.
        This is Unix client but of MIDRANGE.


        09/28/01   09:59:17 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS BEGIN
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects inspected:   62,218
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects backed up:      361
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects updated:          0
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects rebound:          0
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects deleted:          0
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects expired:         81
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of objects failed:           0
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Total number of bytes transferred:   293.13 MB
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Data transfer time:                    3.15 sec
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Network data transfer rate:        95,162.04
KB/sec
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Aggregate data transfer rate:        763.10
KB/sec
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Objects compressed by:                   90%
        09/28/01   09:59:17 Elapsed processing time:           00:06:33

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rob Schroeder [mailto:robs AT FAMOUSFOOTWEAR DOT COM]
        Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:33 PM
        To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        Subject: performance question


        I am running TSM client 3.7.2 on a Win2000 server with Service pack
2. The
        TSM server is Win2000 SP2 and using TSM 4.1.3.  I realize I need to
        upgrade
        the client, but I that will not happen until next week.  My dilemma
is
        this: the server backs up to the TSM server directly to a DISK pool
that
        is
        quite large, the network is Gigabit, and this client is the only
client
        that is talking to the server.  There are no other applications
running on
        either server.  I would expect this baby to scream, but instead it
is
        dogging.  I am getting just 2 MB/sec throughput and would expect to
be
        pushing the network.  Here is the options file I am using:

        LANG AMENG
        tcpserveraddress fftsm01
        changingretries 0
        resourceutilization 10
        schedlogretention 10
        errorlogretention 10
        compression yes
        txnbytelimit 25600
        largecommbuffers yes
        tcpnodelay yes
        compressalways no
        tcpbuffsize 256
        tcpwindowsize 50

        Any ideas?

        Rob Schroeder
        Famous Footwear


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed.  If you have received this email
in error destroy it immediately.
**********************************************************************
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>