[ADSM-L] SV: Crazy idea or not?

Hi

First of all, i'll try to get this straight:

You want to have multiple, virtualized hosts running in a Library Manager / 
Client environment.

The virtualized host will be running either on Xen or ESX? How many physical 
machines are we talking about?

Since you can run multiple TSM servers on the same OS, I see no reason to 
actually virtualize them. Virtualizing the TSM servers will only a) use up 
resources only for the virtualization that you could have actually used for the 
TSM servers instead b) Get you into trouble when it comes to sharing eventual 
resources like fibre adapters, tape drives, memory, CPU.

I have one customer running dual HACMP clusters,each with 2 AIX nodes. One 
HACMP cluster is running 2 TSM servers who serves around 500 clients each. The 
other HACMP cluster is running another 2 TSM servers handling 500 clients each 
and a 3rd TSM server only acting as the library manager. In total, we have 
about 1.2PB of primary data and about 2000 clients. Each server is running on 
it's own port (1500/1580, 1600/1680, 1700/1780, 1800/1880 and 1900/1980). All 
these TSM servers could be running on the same node, but for security reason 
(different administrators) they have been divided into 2 clusters so that they 
can be managed separatly.

Could you explain more in detail what kind of environment you're actually 
setting up?

Daniel
________________________________________
Från: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] f&#246;r Christian 
Svensson [Christian.Svensson AT CRISTIE DOT SE]
Skickat: den 2 februari 2009 13:25
Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Ämne: SV: Crazy idea or not?

Hi Allan,
Funny you say that I going to test BMR, but that is not true. I have moved on 
from to be Mr. BMR in IBMs eyes to now work as a TSM Senoir Consultent.
The issue I have is that the customer only want to runt TSM on Windows and not 
AIX or even Linux.
But to virtualize the TSM Servers we maybe can have more TSM Servers on lest 
Intel Hardware. This is just a test and see what we can do.

I have recommend Linux and AIX instead but the customer only want to run 
Windows Servers.

Best Regards
Christian Svensson

Cell: +46-70-325 1577
E-mail: Christian.Svensson AT cristie DOT se
Skype: cristie.christian.svensson
________________________________________
Från: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] f&#246;r Allen S. 
Rout [asr AT UFL DOT EDU]
Skickat: den 30 januari 2009 17:44
Till: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Ämne: Re: Crazy idea or not?

>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:17 +0100, Christian Svensson <Christian.Svensson 
>> AT CRISTIE DOT SE> said:

> Have anyone try to setup multiple TSM Servers with Library manager
> in a VMware/XEN envirenment where are using multiple host where each
> host have, let's say 8 x 4 core CPUs with 256 GB memory in each
> host.  We where thinking of to try it during Q1/Q2 this year and try
> to transfer 400 test nodes with 25-50 TB data just for fun.  The
> backup will be both LAN-Free and LAN backups. But each TSM Server
> will have direct access to the tape drives via Fiber Channel.


Coming from Cristie, I'd guess you're setting up some sort of test
environment against which to run your BMR products, right?  So you're
really working in a different problem space than most of us; the
tradeoffs we'd find compelling might be irrelevant to you.

I'd say running such an IO intensive app in a hardware environment
where you know you'll pay some overhead seems the wrong way to go.  I
wouldn't reccomend virtualizing your TSM server unless, in your own
setting, it constitutes a relatively minor IO load.


Let's say your total load is large enough that you have multiple
64-core 256G machines to sustain it. In this case you're large enough
to deploy multiple dedicated TSM servers.  You can then do your
"virtualization" within those system images.  More efficient all
around, especially with memory.

But then, I'm running a 1000-node 600TB (primary) environment on a
4-core 8G P630.  You're so ludicrously overpowered for the load you
describe that the virtualization overhead will be meaningless.  Hell,
you could even fit Windows in there; go nuts.


- Allen S. Rout