Hi Richard and thanks for the response. I know I was vague about the performance and we have spent the day doing all sorts of tests to see what improvements can be made. When we have been runnings test backups of small file systems, there has been no activity on the server at all.
However, the reason for my post was more that I was concerned about the number of bytes moved figures (below). The 5000Mb volume is either plainly being shown incorrectly, or perhaps something more serious is afoot. Is this something anyone has seen before? 5000Mb - 947,912,704 2500Mb - 2,621,440,000 1000Mb - 1,048,576,000 Thanks again Farren Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Fragmented Database Maybe? >I'm Running TSM 4.2.2.12 on a Solaris 2.7 server (E250 400Mhz, 1GB mem). >We have been having severe performance issues recently and moved our database >volumes off onto a new disk... You haven't cited the cause-effect case which would motivate such a change. Are you certain that is the problem area? If this is a substantial server, then I would first wonder about the 1 GB memory size, which is rather small these days. More memory is usually the most expeditious way to increase the performance of a computer system. System performance monitoring should reveal the bottlenecks. >Also, is there anyway to see if indeed the database is fragmented? (Chuckle) By definition, all databases are "fragmented" - it's inevitable, and the way they operate. You will see numerous postings in the archives that advise you not to be fixated on this, as it's unavoidable, and efforts to "fix" it are ephemeral and time-costly. Richard Sims, BU
