Hi Richard and thanks for the response.

I know I was vague about the performance and we have spent the day doing
all sorts of tests to see what improvements can be made. When we have been
runnings test backups of small file systems, there has been no  activity on
the server at all.

However, the reason for my post was more that I was concerned about the
number of bytes moved figures (below). The 5000Mb volume is either plainly
being shown incorrectly, or perhaps something more serious is afoot.

Is this something anyone has seen before?

                        5000Mb                -        947,912,704
                        2500Mb                -        2,621,440,000
                        1000Mb                -        1,048,576,000

Thanks again

Farren



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: Fragmented Database Maybe?


>I'm Running TSM 4.2.2.12 on a Solaris 2.7 server (E250 400Mhz, 1GB mem).
>We have been having severe performance issues recently and moved our
database
>volumes off onto a new disk...

You haven't cited the cause-effect case which would motivate such a change.
Are you certain that is the problem area?  If this is a substantial server,
then I would first wonder about the 1 GB memory size, which is rather small
these days.  More memory is usually the most expeditious way to increase
the performance of a computer system.  System performance monitoring should
reveal the bottlenecks.

>Also, is there anyway to see if indeed the database is fragmented?

(Chuckle)  By definition, all databases are "fragmented" - it's inevitable,
and the way they operate.  You will see numerous postings in the archives
that advise you not to be fixated on this, as it's unavoidable, and efforts
to "fix" it are ephemeral and time-costly.

Richard Sims, BU