Re: [ADSM-L] AIX vs Linux 2012

2012-04-22 23:52:11
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] AIX vs Linux 2012
From: "Prather, Wanda" <wPrather AT ICFI DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:44:46 +0000
I haven't seen anything tried on the scale that you are suggesting for Linux - 

Just how many 10gbe and 8 g FC cards can you get in that 32-core, 128GB ram 
intel server you are looking at?!??


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Steven Harris
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] AIX vs Linux 2012

Hi All

I have a work history with AIX going back to AIX 4.1.1, I've also been a casual 
home/hobbyist/play  Linux user since about 1.3.

I've just installed TSM 6.3 on a RHEL 5.7 X86_64 box which is my first 
production Linux/TSM installation.

The main thing I notice is the lack of integration between the varous 

e.g  The Lin_tape driver has its own way of being configured, and the IBM 
manual on the subject appears to be wrong in places. You need to know 
altogether too much about the udev component of linux to implement persistent 
binding (A big thanks to Zoltan Forray for publishing his experiences on this 
list.. I could not have done it without him).  Now I'm trying to configure the 
Qlogic SAN cards for the larger transmission sizes needed for efficient tape 
usage, and having to contact Qlogic directly to get that accomplished.

Windows on the same hardware would have been much much easier.  AIX on a small 
Pseries would just have fallen into place with one set of manuals and 
everything integrated, or maybe the AIX system admins just know what they are 
doing better than the linux guys when it comes to tapes.

RHEL was much harder than I anticipated and has taken excessive time, effort 
and research. It has just gone prod, so I don't know whether I have gotten 
everything right for the long haul.  Once over that hump though... I suspect it 
would be the same as I found with Solaris.  Most things are ok, but when you 
really need some deep OS skills for TSM support to work on a problem, they will 
be hard pressed to find them within IBM.

My $0.02. Your mileage may vary.


Steven Harris
TSM Admin
Canberra Australia

On 21/04/2012 3:50 AM, Robert A. Clark wrote:
> There was an embarassingly bad TCP window size scaling bug in RHEL 
> 5.4. It wasn't acknowledged in any way by RedHat, until late in 5.5, 
> and wasn't fixed until 5.6.
> I faced long and continued skepticism from the network people, and the 
> Linux admins, that such a bug could exist in a RHEL release, that I 
> would be able to discern such a bug, or that it wasn't a TSM problem. 
> (It took about six months to resolve that particular problem, and 
> would've taken even longer if we'd have started looking at it sooner.)
> Only a small percentage of Linux boxes get their network cards 
> barraged with heavy-heavy receive traffic all night every night. So 
> bugs like that don't get discovered quickly, or fixed quickly, or documented 
> quickly.
> (This one affected other brands of backup software too.)
> Also, there is at least one brand of inexpensive 10GBE cards that are 
> complete garbage. They overheat under heavy use, and typically cause 
> the whole system to crash. (For political reasons, we abandoned 10GBE 
> on the backup servers.)
> These cards are sold under three or four different brand names, and 
> were the ones sold by the the top 3 big Intel box makers, because they 
> are the cheapest cards available.
> I'll stop here, before I get into editorializing.
> [RC]
> 04/20/2012 09:38 AM
> Please respond to
> To
> cc
> Subject
> [ADSM-L] AIX vs Linux 2012
> I know this has been discussed in various forms over the years, but 
> I'm specifically wondering about the current state of hardware I have 
> a long history with TSM on AIX.  It's stable, familiar and an I/O 
> powerhouse.  Our Unix admins also favor AIX for serious, heavy-duty 
> workloads.
> We are looking at refreshing our largest P570 now.  I discussed this 
> with our unix admin, who also has a very high opinion of IBM.  He said 
> that current SandyBridge implementations can really make Linux a 
> contender in terms of I/O and CPU performance.  And at about 1/7th the cost.
> I normally dismiss Linux because I was under the impression that you 
> would need many inexpensive servers to equal one P-series for I/O.  It 
> wouldn't be worth it with the added management of dealing with 
> multiple TSM Servers.  Now with DB2, TSM seems to be going more 
> towards the monolithic direction if anything.
> But If I can get a single 32-core, 128GB ram intel server that can 
> actually push multiple 10gbe and 8gb FC interfaces I am finding Linux 
> a little more attractive.
> Does anyone have any stories,  gotchas, or opinions with replacing a 
> P-series host with a modern Intel system 1 for 1?
> Regards,
> Shawn
> ________________________________________________
> Shawn Drew
> This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely 
> for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in 
> error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not 
> in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either 
> whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet 
> can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its 
> subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if 
> modified. Please note that certain functions and services for BNP 
> Paribas may be performed by BNP Paribas RCC, Inc.
> If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you 
> have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for your 
> cooperation.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>