We didn't migrate from our old 3466 to the new one. We installed the new
3466 as an additional system and we will get rid of the old one when all of
the data we have stored on it has expired. It is not worth very much, so we
really don't mind having it sit around for a while. So, it really wasn't
very brave, it was just the easiest out of a bad situation.
We were very upset with IBM for this seemingly planned obsolescence of a
system that we had only had for three years. We had no option but to
completely replace the A model since the RISC box with that system did not
have the required minimum space for the new version of TSM. The version of
ADSM that we had running was going off support, didn't support W2K server
backups, and we were outgrowing the two 3575 tape libraries that we had
attached. They (IBM) would not allow us to attach the tape libraries to
another larger RISC box since the box and the two tape libraries were under
one serial number. It was a pretty bad deal all the way around, but we
didn't want to change backup platforms. We did verify about 100 times that
this new system is fully expandable/upgradeable before we would buy it.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Longo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LTO Performance
I have noticed replies related to the LTO. But also noticed that you
changed "everything at once" or so it seems below. I've seen comments from
some people that did "just" the *SM upgrade you did and saw performance
problems of various kinds.
Have you looked at areas other than LTO? I'm particularly interested in
that we have 3575-L32 now and one option we are looking at is upgrading to
3583/3584 LTO as we are running out of tape storage space.
Did you really do all at once or was this a phased in approach. If you did
all at once, I think you deserve some kind of award that it even works!!
David B. Longo
System Administrator
Health First, Inc.
3300 Fiske Blvd.
Rockledge, FL 32955-4305
PH 321.434.5536
Pager 321.634.8230
Fax: 321.434.5525
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/20/01 01:19PM >>>
I have not been monitoring the list for a while, so forgive me if I ask
something that has been covered previously...
We recently upgraded our 3466 model A01 with two 3575 tape libraries to a
3466 model C01 with a 3584 tape library. We also upgraded from ADSM 3.1.1
to TSM 4.1. I have begun to notice that our tape operations are taking
significantly longer than they did before. Simple restores take forever
between the mount and the start of data transfer, the time it takes to
backup our DB has tripled (and the DB is smaller), and restores of large
Oracle and Exchange databases are taking about twice as long. The process
of backing data up to the copypool for offsite storage is also taking a very
long time. I have a process running now that has backed up 21Gb from one
tape in the primary pool to one tape in the copypool, in other words a
straight tape to tape copy, over a two hour time period.
Does anyone out there have any similar experience? We do have support from
both Tivoli and IBM hardware support, any suggestions on who to call first?
Debbie Weeks
University of South Florida
Information Technologies/Technical Support
********
*[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*(813)974-6926*S/C 574-6926
Fax (813) 974-3054
"MMS <health-first.org>" made the following
annotations on 04/20/01 15:38:14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail
communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in
this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the
message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity;
and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or
opinions.
============================================================================
==
