I'm curious, what kind of storage system do ya'll use for your container pools?
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
David Ehresman
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:56 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: *EXTERNAL* Re: deleing data from a containerpool
We are getting a 78% savings on a mixed workload (BA, Oracle, VM, Exchange,
SQL) with about 350 nodes moving around 10TB of data a night.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Stefan Folkerts
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:43 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] deleing data from a containerpool
This inline deduplication and compression thing really is amazing;
excerpt from q stgpool f=d
Deduplication Savings: 153,840 G (90.83%)
Compression Savings: 8,711 G (56.07%)
Total Space Saved: 162,550 G (95.97%)
So on top of the 90.83% deduplication saving (that dont' require any
reclaiming) this customer saves another 56.07% of the stored data due to
compression making it a total of 95.97% space saved.
These figures require a lot of duplicate data of course but still,
containerpools FTW!
We call it the "cool pool" btw. :-)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Del Hoobler <hoobler AT us.ibm DOT com> wrote:
> Minor correction.
>
> Inline compression for container pools was added in March in 7.1.5.
>
>
> IBM Spectrum Protect 7.1.5 - Inline compression:
> - Performed in-line after deduplication to provide additional storage
> savings
> - Negligible impact on resources – uses latest and most efficient
> compression algorithms
> - Can potentially double (or more) your storage savings after
> deduplication
>
>
> Del
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 08/22/2016
> 09:53:08 AM:
>
> > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Date: 08/22/2016 09:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: deleing data from a containerpool
> > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> >
> > Indeed, TSM 7.1.0 to 7.1.5 only supported deduplication, additional
> > compression was introduced in 7.1.6.
> > Kind regards,
> > Eric van Loon
> > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> > Behalf Of David Ehresman
> > Sent: maandag 22 augustus 2016 15:12
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: deleing data from a containerpool
> >
> > At the most recent levels of TSM, it both dedups and compresses but
> > make sure you are at a level that does both. There was a level that
> > only did dedup but not compression.
> >
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Rhodes, Richard L.
> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:07 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] deleing data from a containerpool
> >
> > >But I totally agree, everyone who is using file device
> >
> > >classes or expensive backend deduplication (like Data Domain or
> Protectier)
> >
> > >should seriously consider switching to container pools.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We currently use DataDomains.
> >
> > With a DD it dedups what it can, then compresses the rest.
> >
> > Does TSM also try and compress what is leftover after dedup?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:39 AM
> >
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >
> > Subject: Re: deleing data from a containerpool
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Stefan!
> >
> > Our database is on SSD in an IBM V3700, but the time needed for a
> > del filespace can be significant though. But I totally agree,
> > everyone who is using file device classes or expensive backend
> > deduplication (like Data Domain or Protectier) should seriously
> > consider switching to container pools. We are working on a design
> > for our next TSM servers and we are able to lower our costs per TB
> > by 75% compared to the old design based on the Data Domain!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Eric van Loon
> >
> > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Stefan Folkerts
> >
> > Sent: dinsdag 16 augustus 2016 8:33
> >
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >
> > Subject: Re: deleing data from a containerpool
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I too have noticed this and it is something to keep in mind.
> >
> > At the same time, I think almost everybody using this pool will be
> > using SSD's for the database the impact will be overseeable.
> >
> > But the directory containerpool is still the best thing to happen to
> > Spectrum Protect since replication came along if you ask me. great
> > performance increase over fileclass restores, no more stopping
> > reclaims during the day to increase restore performance, no more
> > messing with numopenvolsallowed and reclaim values and number of
> > processes to optimize daily operations and restore speed...oh, and
> > compression that saves an easy 30-50% storage and license cost on
> > top of the deduplication!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM <
> > Eric-van.Loon AT klm DOT com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi all!
> >
> > > After doing some extensive testing with a directory container
> >
> > > storagepool I noticed a significant change compared to the old
> >
> > > traditional storage pools.
> >
> > > In a traditional storage pool TSM stores a file like an object. In
> >
> > > most cases one file is one object as far as I could see. Deleting this
>
> >
> > > data is very fast: a delete filespace runs rather fast because TSM
> >
> > > only has to delete the objects. So deleting a large database client
> >
> > > with multiple TBs takes a few seconds or maybe a few minutes.
> >
> > > When you are using a container storage pool everything changes. Files
> >
> > > are still stored as objects, but objects are split into chunks. The
> >
> > > average size of a chuck is approx. 100 KB and TSM performs dedup on
> >
> > > this chuck level. So if you now delete a large file, TSM has to
> >
> > > inspect every chunk to see if it is unique or not. When it is unique
> >
> > > it will be deleted, otherwise not. If you delete a file which is for
> >
> > > instance 40 GB in size, TSM has to inspect around 420,000 chucks
> >
> > > before the object can be deleted. I noticed that this takes several
> >
> > > seconds to complete, so one has to take into consideration that the
> >
> > > deletion of large clients requires significant more time to
> > complete than one is used to.
> >
> > > Deleing a client with little more than 1 TB of Oracle data was running
>
> >
> > > for more than 20 minutes. So a delete filespace for really large
> >
> > > database clients can run for hours! Has anyone else noticed this
> > behavior too?
> >
> > > Kind regards,
> >
> > > Eric van Loon
> >
> > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering
> >
> > > ********************************************************
> >
> > > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >
> u=http-3A__www.klm.com&d=AwIGaQ&c=SgMrq23dbjbGX6e0ZsSHgEZX6A4IAf
> 1SO3AJ2bNrHlk&r=dOGCMY197NTNH1k_wcsrWS3_fxedKW4rpKJ8cHCD2L8&m=
> vUuUnchIk8qp8ANX9ecD5HSZje8iCRgiNUPhmahQWTQ&s=
> eE7XROkp9Iv02y6CJDM84muZgTbKNhpt7nAgYPrCs-0&e=
> > . This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> >
> > > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only.
> >
> > > If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the
> >
> > > e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and
> >
> > > that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
>
> >
> > > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> >
> > > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and
> > delete this message.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or
> >
> > > its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> >
> > > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible
> > for any delay in receipt.
> >
> > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> >
> > > Dutch
> >
> > > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> >
> > > registered number 33014286
> >
> > > ********************************************************
> >
> > >
> >
> > ********************************************************
> >
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> >
> u=http-3A__www.klm.com&d=AwIGaQ&c=SgMrq23dbjbGX6e0ZsSHgEZX6A4IAf
> 1SO3AJ2bNrHlk&r=dOGCMY197NTNH1k_wcsrWS3_fxedKW4rpKJ8cHCD2L8&m=
> vUuUnchIk8qp8ANX9ecD5HSZje8iCRgiNUPhmahQWTQ&s=
> eE7XROkp9Iv02y6CJDM84muZgTbKNhpt7nAgYPrCs-0&e=
> > . This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and
> > privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not
> > the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any
> > attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any
> > other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
> > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and
> > delete this message.
> >
> >
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/
> > or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for
> > any delay in receipt.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> >
> > ********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ********************************************************
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.klm.com&d=AwIFaQ&c=SgMrq23dbjbGX6e0ZsSHgEZX6A4IAf1SO3AJ2bNrHlk&r=dOGCMY197NTNH1k_wcsrWS3_fxedKW4rpKJ8cHCD2L8&m=2khjm5kIUk4HAMhbAmSErW4psymX49EvvcPlonm458c&s=KERJhiJfWrogTNbgmZOr6_HGAgfaXIQntXRwL231Di4&e=
> > . This e-mail and any attachment may contain
> > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee
> > only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of
> > the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or
> > distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or
> > attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have
> > received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately
> > by return e-mail, and delete this message.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/
> > or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for
> > any delay in receipt.
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> > ********************************************************
> >
>
>
>
|
