One of these days, I'll be bored enough to try backing up /dev/zero and see how
many petabytes I can get on the tape - and if I can get the throughput up to
the 370 MB/sec that the LTO-4 claims to support (going from memory here - I
know it's well over 300 MB/sec).
I see about the same as you on the MS stuff, with the exception of TDP for Mail
and Exchange - that seems to be around 1.5 to 1, with most tapes going 'full'
around 1.2 TB.
Tom Kauffman
NIBCO, Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Wanda Prather
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:28 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Preferred TSM Platform
Hey Tom.
I don't know that there's a "max" for the drive compression algorithm; it's
a function of the data.
I routinely see 2.1-2.2:1 on basic mixtures of fileservers, print servers,
winders stuff.
Oracle is almost always higher, I expect 3-3.5:1.
I've seen DB2 compress at 6:1.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Kauffman, Tom <KauffmanT AT nibco DOT com>
wrote:
> I'll admit to not having a good grasp of the PCI-E architecture, but I'll
> stand by my statement that you'll need PCI-E to get maximal performance out
> of LTO-4. I'm fairly certain you'll need to go LAN-free to hit the maximum
> as well - I know that's my current bottleneck. As a side note - does anyone
> know what the maximum drive data compression is on LTO-4? I'm getting about
> 4.1 to 1 on SAP/R3-Oracle, with some tapes hitting 3.5 to 3.7 TB before
> becoming full.
>
> I am glad to hear the X86 architecture scales this well - thanks, Kelly.
>
> Tom Kauffman
> NIBCO, Inc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kelly Lipp
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:12 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Preferred TSM Platform
>
> I have to disagree with that. We routinely run multiple (up to six, and
> the only reason it's only six is we don't have any more to test so perhaps
> more will run) LTO4 drives as fast as they want to run using and IBM x3850
> processor. We run four at a time using an x3650. The buses are PCI-E,
> drives are either SAS or FC. Would that box run six or eight of the IBM
> fancy pants drives? I don't know, haven't ever seen it tried.
>
> For most sites, Windows and the crummy little hardware it runs on will be
> just fine. For you big fellas, not so much. If you are in the "gotta push
> 3-6TB/day" Windows will work. For you 10TB/day folks, maybe not.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> CTO
> STORServer, Inc.
> 485-B Elkton Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> www.storserver.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kauffman, Tom
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:39 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Preferred TSM Platform
>
> Yup.
>
> It boils down to Wanda's statement: "I/O, I/O, it's all about I/O" ---
> Wanda Prather
>
> If you can do the work with LTO-1 or -2 drives, or DLT-7000, or similar
> speed/capacity, then Windows will work. When you get into
> high-speed/high-capacity drives the Intel/AMD architecture comes unglued. A
> single LTO-4 drive will use ALL the I/O bandwith of a PCI or PCI-x bus, and
> a significant chunk of a PCIe(1) bus. The challenge becomes one of finding a
> suitable X86 server with multiple PCIe busses in the design.
>
> IBM has the GX series I/O modules with two PCIe busses each for the P6
> architecture that allows for significant I/O bandwith expansion -- for a
> cost, of course.
>
> Tom Kauffman
> NIBCO, Inc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Kelly Lipp
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:14 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Preferred TSM Platform
>
> I love it when somebody quotes me! Somebody is listening.
>
> I had this discussion with one of our customers yesterday. It really
> does/should boil down to the OS experience you have on hand. Does the AIX
> platform have more capacity/performance than the best Windows platform? I'm
> guessing it probably does. But at what cost? And then more importantly: do
> either of the platforms have enough for you? If both do, then pick the one
> that makes more sense based on your OS experience. And remember: one can
> always divide and conquer.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> CTO
> STORServer, Inc.
> 485-B Elkton Drive
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> www.storserver.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Allen S. Rout
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:52 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Preferred TSM Platform
>
> >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:57:37 +0100, Henrik Vahlstedt <
> SHWL AT STATOILHYDRO DOT COM> said:
>
> > Time to quote Kelly...
>
> > "So to me it's either AIX or Windows (yes, you can do a lot of TSM
> > on Windows once you get past the bigotry!). Choose whichever one
> > you have the most experience with."
>
> <gollum> Achhhh! It BURNS usss, nassssty windowsss.... </gollum>
>
>
> - Allen S. Rout
> - Prefers AIX for this. *koff* :)
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
> notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
> and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
> notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
> and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please
notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message
and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
|
