Rick,
I cannot comment on NFS, but have used Data Domain for my primary storage for
over 6 years now.
My servers run on windows and mount DD using CIFS.
My systems are configured like you describe below; in the backend DD is one
large file system but each TSM instance (server) has multiple dedicated
directories defined as individual device classes.
For example for TSM server 1 the Data Domain file system is laid out:
/backups/tsm/s1/aix
/backups/tsm/s1/ win
/backups/tsm/s1/sql
/backups/tsm/s1/db2
Then on TSM server 2:
/backups/tsm/s2/aix
/backups/tsm/s2/ win
/backups/tsm/s2/sql
/backups/tsm/s2/db2
Where s1, s2, etc. represents a particular TSM server instance.
Individual file device classes and storage pools are defined on each TSM server
for each directory, even though in reality there is only one DD file system.
This has worked well for me, even when using hundreds and hundreds of mount
points from backups, reclaims, migrations, etc.
The only thing I had to be careful of was flat-lining the CPU/memory limits of
the DD system itself.
Hope this helps....
-Rick Adamson
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Rhodes, Richard L.
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:35 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Multiple NFS mounts to same DataDomain
Arnaud's discussion on the another thread is SO interesting (Availability for
Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software for Linux on power system).
It got me thinking of our problems . . .
> NFS, whose performance is not that good on AIX systems
Agreed!!! After getting DataDomain system and using NFS we were/are VERY
unhappy with the NFS performance.
Our Unix admins worked with IBM/AIX support, and finally got an admission that
the problem is AIX/NFS using a single TCP socket for all writes. The
workaround was to use multiple mount point to the same NFS share and spread
writes (somehow) across them. He did this and got higher throughput.
So now I'm wondering if we could use multiple NFS mounts to the same DD for our
file device pools.
aix: /DD/tsm1/mnt1 dd: /data/col1/tsm1/mnt1
/DD/tsm1/mnt2 /data/col1/tsm1/mnt2
/DD/tsm1/mnt3 /data/col1/tsm1/mnt2
Then use multiple dir's for the file device devclass:
define devclass DDFILEDEV devtype=file
dir=/DD/tsm1/mnt1,/DD/tsm1/mnt2,/DD/tsm1/mnt3
According to the link to dsmISI again, TSM will roughly balance across the
multiple mount points, hopefully giving better write throughput. I've been
VERY reluctant to try this since it appears once you add a dir to a file device
devclass, it's there forever!
I'm curious if anyone is doing this.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
PAC Brion Arnaud
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:57 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: *EXTERNAL* Re: Availability for Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software
for Linux on power system
Hi Zoltan,
Many reasons for it, which I'll try to shortly summarize :
1) Isilon makes use of NFS, whose performance is not that good on AIX systems.
We are an AIX shop, and are forced to move to Power Linux machines to get
sufficient performance to cover our backup needs.
Our first experience with Power Linux machines revealed serious lacks in the
functionalities we are accustomed to : no easy HMC setup, thus lack of call
home capabilities so far. In addition to this we needed to setup a RedHat
satellite server to allow for installation on remote servers, and so far are
unable to boot our machines from it ... This will probably work sooner or
later, but requires lots of involvement and time from our sys-admins.
2) Isilon is not perfectly fitting in a big TSM environment. In order to get
decent performance, a third party tool will be needed, whose name is dsmISI.
See following :
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stefanradtke.blogspot.ch_2015_06_how-2Dto-2Doptimize-2Dtsm-2Doperations-2Dwith.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=AzgFQeXLLKhxSQaoFCm29A&r=uJG3UnPaeoz9naeIzbwWFddVED8ETOYHxjoACoofi2Y&m=ceqoly0N1xdMkzC6J2TGqdvDLzG9yKYM_kL2dEIbKXE&s=jsLuA3uyleSJqx2Oeqd7Ei16GvZUAg8ffr282jWfKPw&e=
This means another layer of complexity in the setup, and another vendor to
talk to, if facing performance issues. I had more than my lot of "ping-pong"
games during my career as TSM administrator, between IBM and other vendors, to
reject the responsibility on each other in case of issues. Having 3 parties
involved in our setup will make such games even more frequent ...
3) User base for such a combination in Switzerland is inexistent, at least in
the same order of size than ours. EMC has not been able to provide any customer
reference in this country, with whom we could talk to about their setup. There
must be a good reason for it ...
4) Compatibility issues : this was more kind of a guts feeling I had, but as
usually, it revealed to be true : see the problems I will now be facing with
Little/Big endian versions of TSM/Spectrum Protect (without to mention that
Spectrum Protect 8.1 is not even available for Power Linux so far). I'm
currently facing another one : the Isilon we got is running OneFS 8, and
there's so far no official statement that it is supported, whether by TSM or by
dsmISI. A downgrade to OneFS 7.x revealed to be impossible, due to the fact
that the 8 TB disks installed in the machine are not supporting it ...
5) Support by EMC : revealed to be less efficient than the one offered by IBM.
Since EMC merged with Dell, it became even worse (for a non-native English
speaking person, having a call with support based in India is a nightmare).
Also our storage administrator informed me that from his experience, upgrade
procedures on EMC devices where much more complicated than the ones for IBM
hardware, and almost always required intervention of the vendor to be conducted
properly (lots of dependencies in microcodes, switch versions and so on ...)
6) Costs ...
Of course, your mileage may vary, but in our case I'm pretty sure that
management made the wrong choice (I would have gone IBM Spectrum Scale in
conjunction with an AIX based server : one vendor, blueprints provided, and
guaranteed performance).
Cheers.
Arnaud
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Zoltan Forray
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:38 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Availability for Spectrum Protect 8.1 server software for Linux on
power system
Arnaud,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, PAC Brion Arnaud < Arnaud.Brion AT panalpina
DOT com> wrote:
> because our management (despite my warnings not to do so) decided that
> the target storage for backups would be an EMC Isilon, that connects
> to the TSM server using NFS mounts.
A little off topic for this thread but why do you feel it is a "bad idea"
to use EMC Isilon for TSM target storage for backups? We are leaning in this
direction and in fact have such a configuration for our offsite replication
target server. We are aggressively moving away from expensive VNX storage to
Isilon. So I am curious why you feel the way you do?
--
*Zoltan Forray*
Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator Xymon Monitor
Administrator VMware Administrator (in training) Virginia Commonwealth
University UCC/Office of Technology Services www.ucc.vcu.edu zforray AT vcu DOT
edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable
organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your
password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more
details visit
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__infosecurity.vcu.edu_phishing.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=AzgFQeXLLKhxSQaoFCm29A&r=uJG3UnPaeoz9naeIzbwWFddVED8ETOYHxjoACoofi2Y&m=ceqoly0N1xdMkzC6J2TGqdvDLzG9yKYM_kL2dEIbKXE&s=eMUkLI4e7TjBKiNpwMH9f411dIfF8aGStjBjCDRrGUQ&e=
-----------------------------------------
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.
|