Why not put in some 3592 drives in the 3494? Unfortunately the number of files is going to be the limiting factor.
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 19/06/2005 06:08:42 AM: > From the movie "Blazing Saddles" ... You use your tongue better than > a $20 ...you-know-what. Couldn't have said it better. Heck, I > just wish I could have said it as good! Don't ever leave us!!!!!!! :-) > > In the case of this 15M+ server, it was the imaging vender that > architected this. I've gotten a lot of suggestions from the list > over the past days and I'll try some of them, but I will suggest > that they split this 2TB filesystem into smaller parts based on the > G:\IMAGES\<region>\. Put each region on its own drive. This is also > on an EMC Symmetrix. Another upper management mis-decision they > have to contend with is that the mainframe and open systems must > share the same technology. Hence the EMC Symmetrix and the 3494 > with 3590E drives. Both technologies are somewhat limiting their > open system options. I don't' mean to dis' the 3494...it's a good > box, but the 3590E capacity is hurting them. Plus the speed. Their > daily backup is getting large enough that soon they may not be > able to meet the vaulting deadline. > > > Bill Boyer > "Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield" - ?? > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Sims > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 8:13 AM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: 15,000,000 + files on one directory backup > > All the anguish brought on by this kind of situation brings us back > to the old issue of sites lacking guidance in the area of data > architecture, as should be promulgated by an IT department. What we > are collectively seeing in all these companies is departments > buying the new, large (160 GB+) hard drives or disk arrays now on > the market and implementing them as one, single, huge storage > area, with no thought to the realities involved in the decision. > This is largely a problem in the Windows arena, where this often > derives from people having had basic experience with a personal > computer and who simplistically extrapolate when outfitting larger > systems. This is in contrast to the Unix environment, where there is > pre-existing conditioning to sanely subdivide disk space by > functional categorization and keep file systems manageable. > > Do whatever you can to stem this poor practice... Feed back to the > responsible department; bring it up at meetings; raise awareness > in company publications. Carving out multiple volumes allows for > categorization and easier administration by their owner, and > certainly facilitates backup in terms of time schedule and > parallelization opportunities. If necessary, analogize the issue: > does one implement a 15-foot high filing cabinet, or three 5-foot > high cabinets? It's about practicalities. We TSM administrators > need to make ourselves conspicuous in decision making, not be > willing victims of uninformed decisions. We safeguard our > organizations' > data, and can do that only if sane data architectures prevail. > > Richard Sims
