Why not put in some 3592 drives in the 3494?

Unfortunately the number of files is going to be the limiting factor.

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 19/06/2005
06:08:42 AM:
> From the movie "Blazing Saddles" ... You use your tongue better than
> a $20 ...you-know-what. Couldn't have said it better. Heck, I
> just wish I could have said it as good! Don't ever leave us!!!!!!! :-)
>
> In the case of this 15M+ server, it was the imaging vender that
> architected this. I've gotten a lot of suggestions from the list
> over the past days and I'll try some of them, but I will suggest
> that they split this 2TB filesystem into smaller parts based on the
> G:\IMAGES\<region>\. Put each region on its own drive. This is also
> on an EMC Symmetrix. Another upper management mis-decision they
> have to contend with is that the mainframe and open systems must
> share the same technology. Hence the EMC Symmetrix and the 3494
> with 3590E drives. Both technologies are somewhat limiting their
> open system options. I don't' mean to dis' the 3494...it's a good
> box, but the 3590E capacity is hurting them. Plus the speed. Their
> daily backup is getting large enough that soon they may not be
> able to meet the vaulting deadline.
>
>
> Bill Boyer
> "Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield" - ??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> Behalf Of Richard Sims
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 8:13 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: 15,000,000 + files on one directory backup
>
> All the anguish brought on by this kind of situation brings us back
> to the old issue of sites lacking guidance in the area of data
> architecture, as should be promulgated by an IT department. What we
> are collectively seeing in all these companies is departments
> buying the new, large (160 GB+) hard drives or disk arrays now on
> the market and implementing them as one, single, huge storage
> area, with no thought to the realities involved in the decision.
> This is largely a problem in the Windows arena, where this often
> derives from people having had basic experience with a personal
> computer and who simplistically extrapolate when outfitting larger
> systems. This is in contrast to the Unix environment, where there is
> pre-existing conditioning to sanely subdivide disk space by
> functional categorization and keep file systems manageable.
>
> Do whatever you can to stem this poor practice... Feed back to the
> responsible department; bring it up at meetings; raise awareness
> in company publications. Carving out multiple volumes allows for
> categorization and easier administration by their owner, and
> certainly facilitates backup in terms of time schedule and
> parallelization opportunities. If necessary, analogize the issue:
> does one implement a 15-foot high filing cabinet, or three 5-foot
> high cabinets? It's about practicalities. We TSM administrators
> need to make ourselves conspicuous in decision making, not be
> willing victims of uninformed decisions. We safeguard our
> organizations'
> data, and can do that only if sane data architectures prevail.
>
>      Richard Sims