Hmmmm...... try using namedpipes instead of tcpip for your commmethod, and
see if that makes any difference.
Regards,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply)
The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.
Mike Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/26/2002 11:21
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Why my LAN free backup even slower then my LAN
backup---Was the
900KBps is the expected performance in this LAN free backup environment?
Actually, I use the same Win2k host, all backup direct to tape, all no
disk pool involed, backup same files (backup whole C:\ drive, delete the
filespace before it run next time backup).
To be more precisely, my question should be "Was the 900KBps is the
expected performance in this LAN free backup environment?" Should I
continue to find out some more fine tunning method? How should I continue
the performance tuning in this environment?
Thanks for you informantion any way.
Mike
rs6000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike
It depends of what your configuration looks like and what files you are
backing up.
Think of this:
If you are backing up many small files on one SAN based machine and big
files on another machine, it goes without saying that the machine backing
up
the bigger files will have better throughput times.
LAN free versus LAN based on the other hand also has an easy explanation:
With LAN free going straight to high speed LTO tape drives the small/big
file dilemma also play a role because the LTO drive will now be
"shoeshining" when backing up small files, whereas if the client was LAN
based, the diskpool would recieve the backup before it went off to tape.
When backing up small files via LAN free there is a good possibility that
the LTO drives will not be streaming and hence the total backup thruput is
less.
Does this waffle make any sense?
Rgds
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brown"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Why my LAN free backup even slower then my LAN backup
> Why my LAN free backup even slower then my LAN backup?
>
> I got really bad performance, 1.2MBps for LAN, 900KBps for LANfree
Backup.
>
> My TSM server is Version 4.2.1.11 in AIX 4.3.3, p640, 1 power3
processor,
1G memory;
>
> My TSM Storage Agent veriosn 4.2.1.11 on Win2k Advanced server, TSM
client
4.2.1.20 on same machin, this is a compaq Deskpro EP/SB, 1 PII 350MHz
processor, 256M memory, Emulex LP800 HBA;
>
> 3583 Library, 2109 Switch, 2108r03 bridge;
>
> During LANFree Backup, performance is about 900KBps, win2k host have 15%
CPU utilization, 70% Disk I/O, memory utilization keep low, , even worse
then LAN backup; Paramenters: TCPWINDOWSIZE 63(IBM recommaned in release
notes); TCPBUFFSIZE 512; RESOURCEUTILIZATION 50 (looks like same as set to
10);
>
> During LAN backup, the tsm client win2k host have 95% CPU utilization,
performance is about 1.2MBps;
>
> I hate this Compaq crap. None of the individual are full utilizated,
e.g.
CPU, Memory, or DISK IO, but the whole system together is just simply
slow.
>
> What should be my performance expectation, how come my LAN free backup
even slower then my LAN backup?
>
> For some other host, I am OK, e.g:
>
> When I use the other RS/6000 P640 box as the TSM LAN client, I can get
7.0MBps by using LAN backup;
>
> When I use the other IBM NetVista, 950MHz, Intel, 256M Memory, I can get
1.9MBps by using LAN, with 100% Disk IO Usage;
>
> Mike Brown
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
