Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues resolved or not.
2005-03-16 20:30:15
What in 5.3 warrants new consideration?
The reason we implemented DIRMC is so that when a user restores a file(s) there
are not extra tape mounts to restore the directories We ran into this on
multiple occasions, even when all files were on disk, tape mounts would occur
because the directories were on tape.
Thanks,
Tim Rusforth
City of Winnipeg
-----Original Message-----
From: TSM_User [mailto:tsm_user AT YAHOO DOT COM]
Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 6:48 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: DIRMC - Are copypool reclamation performance issues
resolved or not.
It is fixed but the reason there have been suggestions to use a file
type device class is because disk pools unline sequential pools are scanned
from begining to end for every storage pool backup. I have had some customers
that have millions of directories in their DIRMC pool. Even when none change
they backup runs from hours on that pool. With a file type device class only
the new volumes would be backed up resulting in a much faster backup. Now all
that being said this new feature in V5.3 warrents new consideration. My new
consideration is to stop using DIRMC pools as the reason they were created in
the first place has also long been fixed.
Kyle
"Thorneycroft, Doug" <dthorneycroft AT LACSD DOT ORG> wrote:
OK, after spending a large portion of my day reviewing adsm-l post
going back to
2000, I'm still not sure. Does anyone know if there is still a
performance problem
running reclamation on a DIRMC random access disk pool?
I came across one post that said it was supposedly fixed, but
recommended using
a file type diskpool to be safe.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
|
|
|