Thank's all for the reply's, it's not a log/db/diskpool contrain issue
because I was making a backup of a single 150GB SQL database, that should
not result in many iop's to the log/db.
I am going to try the filepool thing with some private volumes that I can
migrate during the housekeeping to see if this works.
I do find it a little strange that the option would be off for fileclass
storagepools and on for disk storagepools but if this works it's a workable
solution, I can't swap out the raidcontroller for a faster one at the
moment and more cache won't help if that's disabled so we'll see.
I'll keep you guy's posted.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Michael Prix <mp AT rs6000.darktech DOT
org>wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> that's what IBM told us.
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Michael Prix
>
>
> On 02/11/2013 01:46 PM, Stefan Folkerts wrote:
>
>> Thanks Michael, so the use of the filepool storagepool type does not set
>> the O_SYNC flag (and therefor uses the cache on the raid controller) but a
>> normal diskpool does (and therefor doesn't use the cache)?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Michael Prix <mp AT rs6000.darktech DOT org
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> I assume with diskpool you mean primary pools devicetype disk.
>>> Create a filepool on the internal disks and measure performance against
>>> it.
>>> If this is as expected, the internal RAID-controller honors the
>>> O_SYNC-writes TSM uses for diskpools and in this case the cache of the
>>> RAID-controller is not used.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards
>>>
>>> Michael Prix
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/11/2013 11:08 AM, Stefan Folkerts wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
|
