First time I heard that rule was in a Robert Heinlein book call "The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress". They even had an acronym for it TANSTAAFL "there ain't no
such thing as a free lunch".
--
Phillip
(901)320-4462
(901)320-4856 FAX
-----Original Message-----
From: Salak Juraj [mailto:J.Salak AT ASAMER DOT AT]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:46 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] AW: Throttling back TSM client
:-)
is full list of Raibeck´s Rule available?
Sound like new Murphy!
best
Juraj
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] Im
> Auftrag von Andrew Raibeck
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. April 2006 22:57
> An: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Betreff: Re: Throttling back TSM client
>
> > Seems that every action has some re-action.
>
> Sounds like Raibeck's Rule #37: "There is no free lunch" :-)
>
> Regard,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Raibeck
> IBM Software Group
> Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes
> e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail:
> storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
> IBM Tivoli Storage Manager support web page:
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/sysmgmt/products/support/IBMTi
> voliStorageManager.html
>
> The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
> The command line is your friend.
> "Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2006-04-25
> 13:40:27:
>
> > Thanks Richard, et al,
> >
> > I thought the default RESOURCEUTIL was also the minimal value, so I
> > don't think we could lower that any more than it already is. Using
> > MEMORYEFFICIENTBACKUP is a good idea, as is using 'nice' to
> deprioritize.
> >
> > We have actually been working hard to improve TSM
> performance so that
> > we can restore data more quickly. Seems that every action has some
> > re-action. Reducing the TSM Server as a bottleneck serves
> to move the
> > bottleneck to the client, where it can interfere with other
> applications.
> >
> > ..Paul
> >
> > At 02:37 PM 4/25/2006, Richard Sims wrote:
> > >Certainly, "de-tuning" the TSM backups will reduce the
> impact, where
> > >the most obvious tactic is to minimize
> RESOURceutilization. And you
> > >can get more drastic via MEMORYEFficientbackup Yes. Depending upon
> > >the file population, the influx of the Active files list at the
> > >beginning of an incremental will always have a "fixed"
> impact. Beyond
> > >that, you can deprioritize the TSM client process at the OS level.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757
> > Manager, Storage Systems Fx: 607-255-8521
> > 719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu
>
*********************************************************************
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you
are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the
information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and
permanently delete.
|
