I'm finding it difficult to understand why horrible performance
is taking so long to correct in a product that costs so darn much to run
on UNIX platforms compared to Intel, but I'll restrain myself for now.
I wonder why you would release a product at all that performs that
badly, and then force your clients to upgrade to it, all while
increasing the cost of new licenses? Do they want less customers or
what? My company is already investigating less expensive alternatives
because of performance issues with restores, and the cost of licensing
TSM, if they hear about this it'll become a no brainer, and I'll be out
of a job.
I guess the next question is around the server, is it all client
side, or is this problem partly server side? The majority of our
clients are Windows, so we could go to 5.5 on the server, and windows
clients and run 5.4.2 on UNIX boxes to avoid the issue. However, if
it's partly server side, I'd be interested in finding out what server
level has the better performance.
See Ya'
Howard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Dave Canan
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:19 PM
> To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] 5.4 performance issues
>
> Howard/Paul,
>
> This problem has been reported against the 5.4 AND 5.5 TSM
> client
> levels. It has also been reported against all client platforms EXCEPT
> Windows. Paul, I am trying to track down your specific question to see
> if
> this also includes MAC OS 10.x. I believe the answer is yes, but I
need
> to
> verify.
>
> Fix levels for this APAR are 5.4.2, and 5.5.2. Release dates
> for
> these levels are subject to change, but 5.4.2 is due out later this
> month
> and 5.5.1 is due out 2Q08.
>
> I also am trying to see if these will be released as an
> interim
> fix. I still need to verify this.
>
>
> At 01:04 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> >Does anyone know if these issues exist in the 5.5 Clients? It may be
> >that since 5.5 is GA they will urge us in that direction. I was
> >planning to go there, but if these kinds of speed and support issues
> >exist, we may not for some time.
> >
> >See Ya'
> >Howard
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Steve Roder
> > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:08 AM
> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] 5.4 performance issues
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I wonder, with so many months passing since 5.4 has gone GA,
> and
> > > no
> > > usuable, secure 5.4 client, will IBM be extending support of 5.3?
> > >
> > > We are in the process of testing 5.3.5.5, as it fixes the
> >security
> > > issue in dsmcad, and does not have the preformance issues of
5.4.x.
> > > And
> > > then in less than 7 weeks, we will be unsupported.
> > >
> > > Steve Roder
> > > University at Buffalo
> > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | (716)645-3564)
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Dave Canan wrote:
> > > > IBM has had several customers reporting this
performance
> > > issue
> > > > after upgrading to level 5.4. APAR IC53531 was originally opened
> for
> > > this
> > > > for the NetWare platform only. We are now also seeing the same
> issue
> > > for
> > > > this APAR for customers on UNIX platforms as well. (However,
this
> > > APAR does
> > > > not apply to Windows platforms.) For Netware, the interim fix is
> > > 5.4.1.4. I
> > > > do not have the date for the UNIX platforms yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 05:02 PM 3/14/2008 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > >Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > We recently upgraded the TSM clients on our cryus imap
> >servers
> > > from
> > > > >5.3.0.12 to 5.4.1.2 (and then 5.4.1.5), and since that upgrade,
> we
> > > have
> > > > >seen the backups of about 4.5million files in each of our 12
> spools
> > > go
> > > > >from about 2.5 hours to approx. 4 days (had we let it run to
> > > completion).
> > > > >
> > > > >Anyone else seeing issues with 5.4.x on Solaris clients with
> > > millions of
> > > > >files?
> > > > >
> > > > >Other vitals:
> > > > > Server: 5.4.1.2 on AIX
> > > > > Network: GB
> > > > >
> > > > > Client OS Solaris 2.9
> > > > > Filesystems are VxFS on an Hitachi 9960.
> > > > >
> > > > >We have opened a PMR with IBM, and they want to run some
traces,
> >but
> > > we
> > > > >have since reverted back to 5.3.0.12, and our 2.5hr backups.
> > > > >
> > > > >We need to run 5.4 to stay supported, and a minimum of 5.4.1.2
> for
> > > the
> > > > >fix for the security issues in dsmcad, which we use for email
> > > restores on
> > > > >these systems.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks in advance for any insights anyone can provide.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Steve Roder
> > > > >University at Buffalo
> > > > >([EMAIL PROTECTED] | (716)645-3564)
> > > >
> > > > Dave Canan
> > > > TSM Performance
> > > > IBM Advanced Technical Support
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dave Canan
> TSM Performance
> IBM Advanced Technical Support
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
