Hi Chavdar,

If it would be the raidcontroller I would expect a CIFS copy to be slow as
well but it is not, a LAN based CIFS copy to the same disk the diskpool is
on is fast, the disk is only slow when using it with TSM.

Regards,
   Stefan


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chavdar Cholev <chavdar.cholev AT gmail DOT 
com>wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
> if it is HP server check to you have cache battery on RAID (if any) I
> had simmilar issue, when I do backup form disk to LTO it was ~80-90
> MB/s, but when nodes baked up to this disk stg it was ~8-10 MB/s even
> I have etherchannel 2x1Gbps ...
> Regards
> Chavdar
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Folkerts
> <stefan.folkerts AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am running into a strange performance issue at a small TSM site.
> > They have an new intel based TSM server running Windows 2008 R2 running
> TSM
> > 5.5 (don't ask) with enough CPU and memory to run the server 4 times
> over.
> > It has 2 disks in raid 1 for the TSM log, 4 disks in raid 10 for the TSM
> > database and 5 disks (all 10k) for the diskpool in raid 5.
> > The server has 2 1Gb/s ethernet ports in a 2Gb/s LACP channel.
> >
> > A normal CIFS copy to the server raid 5 filesystem loads the interface up
> > to 25%.
> > A TSM backup to LTO (I believe LTO4) loads the interface up to about the
> > same load.
> > However a TSM backup to the diskpool only get the load up to 5-6%.
> > I have tried a default dsmserv.opt and dsm.opt and 'tuned' ones.
> > Multiple clients or just one, MSSQL or fileserver data, nothing matters,
> as
> > soon as I go to the diskpool the performance is gone.
> >
> > Even a local backup to 127.0.0.1 is slow to the diskpool but fast to
> tape.
> > I did filesystem checks, recreated the filesystem, swapped the
> > raidcontroller (that was done before performance checks and seems a bit
> > silly now) but I can't find the issue.
> > There are no errors in Windows or TSM, everything is just fine but very
> > very slow.
> > I recreated the diskpool volumes one by one to make sure there is no
> weird
> > fragmentation going on, that didn't change anything, even with a single
> > 1Gb/s connection the speed is still many times faster to tape than it is
> to
> > the diskpool but a filecopy via CIFS to the same disk is fast.
> >
> > Has anybody ever seen this before?
> >
> > Regards,
> >    Stefan
>