Rick
No I have only two paths to each drive one on each san. The full set
up when I finally get my V5 servers decommed is
two LMs and two "workers", one at each site
24x LTO5 drives at each site
All HBAs are 8Gb
two HBAs on each worker dedicated to offsite traffic
6 hbas on each worker (mostly) dedicated to onsite traffic
two HBAs for disk
The local drives on the offsite-traffic HBAs are normally used to
receive traffic from offsite, so are not used locally.
This gives a fan-out of three drives per HBA.
Inter-site bandwidth is 4Gb on each SAN, but this is shared with disk
mirror traffic, and there is more offsiting from a->b than from b->a
Regards
Steve.
On 15/10/2014 11:36 PM, Rhodes, Richard L. wrote:
> So in your setup is each tape drive has both ports used, with each
> to a separate san's. You mentioned 4 HBA's - is that 2 into each
> SAN? If so, then do you have 4 RMT devices for each tape drive?
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
> [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Harris Sent:
> Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:24 AM To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Load balancing when you have many virtual tapes?
>
> Rick
>
> I have a recent set up, TSM 6.3.4.300 on AIX 7.1, LTO5s and I too
> always thought that the atape driver did load balancing.
> However I have one port on each drive connected to one SAN and one
> port connected to a second SAN and I can see what port is being
> used because of which HBA the traffic goes down: in my environment
> I don't have access to the switches to be able to monitor there.
>
> All of the TSM paths were defined using devices on the same SAN as
> I thought load balancing meant this would not matter. As it turns
> out the one I chose has a performance issue. Looking closer I saw
> that all the traffic was going down the devices as defined in the
> path, and none on the other SAN.
>
> When I rmdev-ed the device on the SAN with the performance issue,
> there was a message that the device had changed, the TSM path was
> updated to the alternate device (which I did not expect) and
> subsequent mounts have been on the alternate path.
>
> HTH
>
> Steve
>
> Steven Harris TSM Admin Canberra Australia
>
> On 14/10/2014 4:08 AM, Rhodes, Richard L. wrote:
>> What kind of drive are they emulating? Are they emulating IBM
>> drives with Atape driver? My understanding (I've been trusting
>> this for years) will auto load balance across hba's.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
>> [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of Erwann Simon Sent:
>> Monday, October 13, 2014 12:36 PM To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>> Subject: Re: Load balancing when you have many virtual tapes?
>>
>> Hello Wanda,
>>
>> As TSM allocates drives in order, you have to distribute drive
>> between the HBAs in a round robin way (with 4 hba : drive 1 on
>> hba 1, drive 2 on hba... drive 5 on hba 1 and so on). I prefer
>> doing this at VTL level using mapping policy (i.e access groups
>> on Data Domain).
>>
>> Le 13 octobre 2014 18:28:36 CEST, "Prather, Wanda"
>> <Wanda.Prather AT ICFI DOT COM> a écrit :
>>> TSM 7.1.1 on AIX So I have a customer putting in a VTL, which
>>> will have 96 virtual drives. Those virtual drives will be
>>> spread across 4 HBA's.
>>>
>>> What sort of strategies to people use to keep TSM from starting
>>> a BACKUP stgpool process and picking 4 virtual drives all on
>>> the same HBA? Is it dependent on the order you do your DEFINE
>>> DRIVE commands? Better to set up multiple virtual libraries?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions appreciated.
>>>
>>> Wanda
>>>
>>>
>>> Wanda Prather | Senior Technical Specialist |
>>> Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com<mailto:Wanda.Prather AT icfi DOT com> |
>>> www.icfi.com<http://www.icfi.com/> | 410-868-4872 (m) ICF
>>> International | 7125 Thomas Edison Dr., Suite 100, Columbia,
>>> Md |443-718-4900 (o)
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------- The information
> contained in this message is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible
> for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that you have received this document in error and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original
> message.
>
|
