First I would change your server options to these (the max values have increased in more recent TSM versions): movebatchsize 1000 movesizethresh 2048
Also, are you using a file devclass or a regular diskpool on the SATA drives? Is it raw space or JFS or JFS2? Earlier today someone sent out a link to the Top 10 TSM performance tips document. The second half of that pdf is about finding performance bottlenecks in your TSM environment. I suggest you check that out and run the instrumentation traces on the server during the migration and then tell us where the bottleneck is - should help narrow it down to disk or tape. There are examples in the presentation and one even talks about slow migration problems. ______________________________ John Monahan Senior Consultant Enterprise Solutions Computech Resources, Inc. Office: 952-833-0930 ext 109 Cell: 952-221-6938 http://www.computechresources.com Chet Osborn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: To Dist Stor ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Manager" cc <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> Subject Re: TSM Performance with 3584 LTO-2 Drives 10/20/2005 04:18 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> Thanks for the replies, but no luck yet. The data being migrated all belonged to a single node, and only two tape mounts were involved. The drive firmware is up to date. I'll be damned if I can figure out how to determine what the 3584 library firmware level is or how to download it. The device driver (Atape) software is up to data as of a month o\r so ago. I've double-checked the zoning, and everything seems as it should be (server and disk in one zone and server and tape drives in another zone). At 02:23 PM 10/20/2005, you wrote: >Another factor to consider: does the tape pool in question have >collocation turned on? If so, then depending on the number of tapes in >the pool, the type of collocation in effect and the number of client nodes >or filespaces to be migrated, there could be a very large number of tape >mounts occurring. With only two drives, and depending on the mount >retention period specified on the device class, I could believe that an >awful lot of that 10.5 hours might've been spent fiddling around with tape >mounts, idle drives, etc., and not actually writing data. > >Regards, >Bill > >Bill Kelly >Auburn University OIT >334-844-9917 > > > It also wouldn't hurt to verify that your library and drive code > > (firmware) are up-to-date. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Jim Skinner > > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:36 AM > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM Performance with 3584 LTO-2 Drives > > > > I believe the first thing to check is the zoning of the fiber channel > > network. TSM server and disk in one zone and in a different zone put tsm > > server and tape. We had a similar problem. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/20/05 11:22 AM >>> > > Hi, > > > > We're recently connected a 3584 with one L52 frame containing 2 LTO-2 > > fiber attached drives to our AIX server. We'll be using FAStT SATA > > disk as a primary storage pool and migrating from disk to tape. Can > > anyone with a similar setup provide any statistics on how this works > > in the real world, i.e. MB/sec or GB/hour from disk to tape. > > > > A test migration of 259 GB (152422 files) took 10.5 hours to > > complete. This seems like abysmally slow performance, or is it > > reasonable with a large numbers of small files? > > > > TSM version: 5.3.1 > > > > MoveBatchSize 500 > > MoveSizeThresh 512 > > > > AIX version: 5.1 > > > > Chet Osborn > > Systems Programmer > > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > > > > Jim Skinner > > The University of Kansas Hospital > > Westwood Campus > > Information Technology Systems > > 2330 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 201/068 > > Westwood KS 66205-2005 > > 913-588-4787 > > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: > > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > confidential information and intended only for the use of the > individual or entity named in the address. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this information is strictly > prohibited. If you received this information in error, please > notify the sender and delete this information from your computer > and retain no copies of any of this information. > >
