Stefan:
I've seen this on other applications besides TSM, and in those cases it was all
about tuning the application, after all efforts were made to make sure the
hardware wasn't the bottleneck.
How much memory does your SCSI controller have for cache?
Are each of your arrays on separate SCSI busses?
Have you used perfmon or the Task manager to watch for abnormally high-load
processes?
If you have antivirus running on this machine, have you tweaked it to ignore
the TSM database files?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Stefan Folkerts
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:56 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Strange TSM diskpool performance issue
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
|
