Re:Collocation - Maybe I don't understand how the restores *should* be working. In our case we have 2 drives. When I do a big restore, that's spread out across a lot of tapes, I don't see it using both drives. It mounts one, finds what it needs, mounts the next tape, etc. It doesn't seem to use the second drive. Collocation would help in that case, since it would cause less tape mounts. So then the question becomes...I take it this isn't what should be happening? Is there something special you have to do to make it use multiple tape drives? I use the webclient for initiating restores on netware/windows clients. I've never seen any settings in the webclient that appear to be for using all the tape drives instead of one. Is it something I can only do by using a command line restore with dsmc?
Troy Frank Network Services University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation 608.829.5384 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/29/2004 9:48:57 AM >>> We have always used compression going to Disk. We use exclude.compression for things like .zip etc. You may want to use compressalways yes to avoid resending data that grows. We are not collocating at all - why would you want to? From a restore perspective (using multi-session restore) it is better to have the data spread out across multiple volumes. -----Original Message----- From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 28, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM? We are using 25 GB volumes right now. We are also still collocating the storage pools that use the file device class by node. This has worked out fine for us. Sad to admit but I wasn't aware of the Technical Exchange recommendation. Is there a white paper from that you could refer me to. We are contemplating turning on node compression everywhere to also help reduce disk space. Also, I made mention in a previous post that we were reclaiming down to 50% and that was fine. Well, like always when you make a comment like that it makes you think and they you go look. I found that we were using around 16 TB's of ATA space in all when you look at the "In Use" numbers. When I looked at the actual disk in use it was closer to 21 TB's of data. I am currently reclaiming everything down to 40 and I plan to get down to 25 again. At that point I will compare the numbers and see how much I can reduce the 21 TB's in use. Also somewhat interesting information. We have found that the I/O capabilities of the latest and greatest servers can really help push a lot more data to disk. We have always been told by our disk vendor that the bottleneck wasn't them. We ruled out many things except them. Finally we looked at a more detailed performance monitor of our systems and we found that the we were killing the processor during times when we were pushing a lot of data to disk. With these new servers we see migrations from Fibre disk to ATA disk at over 150 GB/hr. We do have 60 TB's of ATA space though so we have a lot of disks to write to. "Rushforth, Tim" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Just curious what size of file volumes are you using? We were originally using 25 GB, and then I listened to the "Disk Only Backup Strategies" Technical Exchange where they recommended 2-4 GB volumes. Thanks, Tim Rushforth City of Winnipeg -----Original Message----- From: TSM_User [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 27, 2004 6:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: D2D vs. tape backups with TSM? Funny, we set ours down to 25% as well just to see what would happen. This worked but we have since set all of the ATA Pools to 50% and we just leave them there. Theoretically what could happen is we could be wasting twice as much space but the fact is the volumes were going from 25% to 50% in a matter of days and when we looked at how many volumes were between 25% and 50% in our environment we determined there was no need to reclaim down that far. From all outward signs there was no issues with reclaiming down to 25% we just didn't think it was worth doing the extra work to get back such a small amount of disk. Disk is cheap, right! lol "Rushforth, Tim" wrote: We've set ours at 25%. We are just piloting an all disk backup pool for some clients on one of our servers and for small files on another. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. Confidentiality Notice follows: The information in this message (and the documents attached to it, if any) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken, or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately by replying to this email. Thank you.
