At 12:55 PM 9/10/2004 -0400, you wrote:

I'm sorry, but you are asking wrong guy.

Like I said I got them from somewhere, ran it on our server (it showed between 5 and 10 mil on average), so I didn't spend more time on them.

ANYBODY???
WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE SCRIPTS AUTHOR???



Joe Crnjanski
Infinity Network Solutions Inc.
Phone: 416-235-0931 x26
Fax:     416-235-0265
Web:  www.infinitynetwork.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Sung Y Lee [mailto:sunglee AT US.IBM DOT COM]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:27 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Expiration performance






Pretty nice scripts.
It was noted that output should be   > 5 mil for 1st script  and  >3.8 mil
for 2nd script.
Should this be a concern if 1st script shows up > 5 mil, but the 2nd
script is < 3.8 mil for the TSM server?
Could this be used as bench mark to say, the faster and better CPU and/or
TSM server is needed? I know this question is very general since there are
many many factors to be consider.... I guess can or should one include this
in the sizing of the current environment?

Thanks,

Sung Y. Lee



             Joe Crnjanski
             <JCrnjanski@INFIN
             ITYNETWORK.COM>                                            To
             Sent by: "ADSM:           ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
             Dist Stor                                                  cc
             Manager"
             <[email protected]                                     Subject
             .EDU>                     Re: Expiration performance


             09/10/2004 12:06
             PM


             Please respond to
             "ADSM: Dist Stor
                 Manager"






I have scripts to test performance. I don't remember how did I get them
(maybe from this group)



Database backup performance (result from the script should be >5,000,000)

select activity, cast ((end_time) as date) as "Date", (examined/cast
((end_time-start_time) seconds as decimal (18,13)) *3600) "Pages backed
Up/Hr" from summary where activity='FULL_DBBACKUP' and days (end_time)
-days (start_time)=0



Expiration performance (result from the script should be >3,800,000)

select activity, cast ((end_time) as date) as "Date", (examined/cast
((end_time-start_time) seconds as decimal (18,13)) *3600) "Objects Examined
Up/Hr" from summary where activity='EXPIRATION' and days (end_time) -days
(start_time)=0


Joe Crnjanski
Infinity Network Solutions Inc.
Phone: 416-235-0931 x26
Fax:     416-235-0265
Web:  www.infinitynetwork.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Tomá? Hrouda [mailto:throuda AT HTD DOT CZ]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 5:10 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Expiration performance


Hi all,

I have a question for people that are administering simillar TSM system
like
me.
TSM server on Sunfire 6800, 4x UltraSparcIII 1.2GHz, Solaris 5.9, Veritas
VM
3.5 MP3. Database and diskpools at HP512 disk array with 2x 2Gbit FC HBA
connect.
About 500 TSM nodes including fileservers, Oracle DB, MS Exchange, MS SQL.
About 800-1000GB daily data througput. TSM DB has 54GB allocated space and
about 80% utilization.

Now what is going about: there is about 4 milions examined and about 1
milion deleted objects (average values) during expiration process, which
takes about 3-4 hours every day. This means about 15000obj/min effective
speed, but I know, this value is greatly dependent on deleted object and
less on examined object. Here is last 20 days in table:

DATUM         MINT    EXAMINED    DELETED    OBJ_MIN
----------  ------   ---------  ---------    --------
2004-08-22     263     3398758     615560    12874.0
2004-08-23     228     3351541     612942    14635.5
2004-08-24     206     2484002     650679    12000.0
2004-08-24      28      338548     153478    11674.0
2004-08-24      41      763327     658053    18174.4
2004-08-25     239     2906026     718224    12108.4
2004-08-26     242     3054086     752255    12568.2
2004-08-27     250     3168014     846850    12621.5
2004-08-28     242     2989464     634817    12302.3
2004-08-29     263     3050878     721088    11556.3
2004-08-30     229     2887915     564426    12556.1
2004-08-31     269     3688850     850329    13662.4
2004-09-02      17      148694     124645     8260.7
2004-09-03     209     2140264    1305591    10191.7
2004-09-04     382     5130891    1520585    13396.5
2004-09-05     302     4220154     566306    13927.9
2004-09-06     253     4245286     593276    16713.7
2004-09-07     236     4193877     628473    17695.6
2004-09-08      83      824472     290712     9815.1
2004-09-09     137     2099219     410653    15211.7
2004-09-09     244     3891087    1064453    15881.9

We are monitoring whole system day by day (CPU, disk groups I/O, memory,
network ...blablabla) and there is seen from these data, that CPU is
largely
loaded during backups (70-90%), but not during expiration (5-10%). Database
disks have average activity about 0,5MByte/s read and 0,5Mbyte write during
both backups and expiration, and about 12Mbyte/s read during TSM database
backup. But there is about 25% processing time waiting for I/O during both
backups and expiration. There is SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE activated, bufferpool
is 131072 KB and last 2 months no increase was registered.

I have some other experiences on smaller TSM systems with different
configurations, on different hardware and platforms, but all these systems
are much more loaded during expiraton process than during backups. I want
to
ask, if somebody has system with similar sizing in production and if these
values (I mean low load affect of expiration process) seems OK, or what si
your expiriences with expirations. Am I supposed to find some bottlenecks
in
filesystem/OS/TSM settings? Or is this fenomen caused by size of TSM
environment and is it normal?

Thanks for any suggestions

Tomas Hrouda
Storage Specialist
HTD s.r.o. Praha
CZECH REPUBLIC
throuda AT htd DOT cz

Dave Canan
TSM Performance
IBM Advanced Technical Support
ddcanan AT us.ibm DOT com