Well we are talking about Volumes on disk (but tape is the same).  To use
mutli-session restore you would need a client that supports it(I don't think
the api clients like tdp for exchange support it), the maximum mount points
for the client must be > 1 and that resourceutilization setting in the
client msut be > 1.

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Frank [mailto:Troy.Frank AT UWMF.WISC DOT EDU]
Sent: July 29, 2004 10:40 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?

Re:Collocation - Maybe I don't understand how the restores *should* be
working.  In our case we have 2 drives.  When I do a big restore, that's
spread out across a lot of tapes, I don't see it using both drives.  It
mounts one, finds what it needs, mounts the next tape, etc.  It doesn't
seem to use the second drive.  Collocation would help in that case,
since it would cause less tape mounts.
So then the question becomes...I take it this isn't what should be
happening?  Is there something special you have to do to make it use
multiple tape drives?  I use the webclient for initiating restores on
netware/windows clients. I've never seen any settings in the webclient
that appear to be for using all the tape drives instead of one.  Is it
something I can only do by using a command line restore with dsmc?


Troy Frank
Network Services
University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation
608.829.5384

>>> TRushforth AT WINNIPEG DOT CA 7/29/2004 9:48:57 AM >>>
We have always used compression going to Disk. We use
exclude.compression
for things like .zip etc. You may want to use compressalways yes to
avoid
resending data that grows.

We are not collocating at all - why would you want to? From a restore
perspective (using multi-session restore) it is better to have the
data
spread out across multiple volumes.

-----Original Message-----
From: TSM_User [mailto:tsm_user AT YAHOO DOT COM]
Sent: July 28, 2004 8:29 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?

We are using 25 GB volumes right now. We are also still collocating
the
storage pools that use the file device class by node. This has worked
out
fine for us. Sad to admit but I wasn't aware of the Technical Exchange
recommendation. Is there a white paper from that you could refer me
to.

We are contemplating turning on node compression everywhere to also
help
reduce disk space.

Also, I made mention in a previous post that we were reclaiming down to
50%
and that was fine. Well, like always when you make a comment like that
it
makes you think and they you go look. I found that we were using around
16
TB's of ATA space in all when you look at the "In Use" numbers. When I
looked at the actual disk in use it was closer to 21 TB's of data. I
am
currently reclaiming everything down to 40 and I plan to get down to
25
again. At that point I will compare the numbers and see how much I can
reduce the 21 TB's in use.

Also somewhat interesting information. We have found that the I/O
capabilities of the latest and greatest servers can really help push a
lot
more data to disk. We have always been told by our disk vendor that
the
bottleneck wasn't them. We ruled out many things except them. Finally
we
looked at a more detailed performance monitor of our systems and we
found
that the we were killing the processor during times when we were
pushing a
lot of data to disk. With these new servers we see migrations from
Fibre
disk to ATA disk at over 150 GB/hr. We do have 60 TB's of ATA space
though
so we have a lot of disks to write to.


"Rushforth, Tim" < TRushforth AT WINNIPEG DOT CA > wrote:
Just curious what size of file volumes are you using? We were
originally
using 25 GB, and then I listened to the "Disk Only Backup Strategies"
Technical Exchange where they recommended 2-4 GB volumes.

Thanks,

Tim Rushforth
City of Winnipeg

-----Original Message-----
From: TSM_User [mailto:tsm_user AT YAHOO DOT COM]
Sent: July 27, 2004 6:41 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM?

Funny, we set ours down to 25% as well just to see what would happen.
This
worked but we have since set all of the ATA Pools to 50% and we just
leave
them there. Theoretically what could happen is we could be wasting
twice as
much space but the fact is the volumes were going from 25% to 50% in a
matter of days and when we looked at how many volumes were between 25%
and
50% in our environment we determined there was no need to reclaim down
that
far. From all outward signs there was no issues with reclaiming down to
25%
we just didn't think it was worth doing the extra work to get back such
a
small amount of disk. Disk is cheap, right! lol


"Rushforth, Tim" wrote:
We've set ours at 25%. We are just piloting an all disk backup pool
for
some clients on one of our servers and for small files on another.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.


Confidentiality Notice follows:

The information in this message (and the documents attached to it, if any)
is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for
the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken, or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in
error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the
documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard copies you may have
created and notify me immediately by replying to this email. Thank you.